RAVI S.DHAVAN, J. - (1.) ALL these writ petitions are the subject matters of an enactment, entitled the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') At the very out set, it may be placed on record here that initially as the arguments were addressed, vehemently opposed on behalf of the State respondents, the thrust of the submissions were based on a decision of the Supreme Court in re: M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.. (1994 -II -LLJ -724) (SC). The common action of the .State respondents which aggrieves the petitioners, is a notice, similar in content, issued to all of them, but individually. In effect, the notice calls upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - as compensation for allegedly having employed a child for labour. The notice alleges violation of the Act. Simultaneously, the notice announces that the proceedings, that is to say, complaints, have been filed against the erring employers before, the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that provisions of the Act having been violated, the erring employers be prosecuted consequently with punishment and fine as may be prescribed.
(2.) INITIALLY , the defence of the State respondents was that there is not much the petitioners can complain as the Supreme Court had ordered it in its decisions that these notices be sent to the employers in violation of the Act and requiring them to pay compensation and that the State respondents were otherwise obliged to file complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the prosecution of those employers who have engaged child labour. It would also be appropriate to place on record that, the State respondents kept modulating their stand by filing several affidavits subsequent to the counter affidavits filed in the writ petitions. It may also be set on record that it was not disclosed to the Court that ten days after the judgment in re: M.C. Mehta (supra), the Supreme Court in re: M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., I.A. No. 22 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4077 of 1985, decided on December 18, 1996 had clarified its earlier decision in re: M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra). But strangely, on behalf of the State it was maintained that the notices demanding Rs. 20,000.00 for each child allegedly employed is valid and so are the prosecutions. It was even submitted that the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is not binding on the State of Uttar Pradesh as it was a decision between parties from the Union Territory of Delhi. Subsequently, on records are certain clarifications by the Government of India itself, which was not accepted on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, as it was consistently submitted that the petitioners are liable to pay the compensation and face prosecution as filed by the official agency, i.e., the Department of Labour, Uttar Pradesh, of now, at the time of dictating the judgment, during the intervening Dipawali vacations, the Court finds that official statements have been issued by the Secretary to the Government of India acknowledging that the Act, as it stands, needs drastic amendments and that the Government of India was preparing a draft for proposed amendments. In between, a set of petitions have also seen a decision before a learned Single Judge but on this the parties are agreed, i.e., the counsel for the petitioners and the Chief Standing Counsel, that decision in re: Anil Kumar Agrawal v. Assistant Labour Commissioner, 1999 (81) FLR 43 have been rendered without opportunity to the State in filing a counter affidavit and that pleadings had not been exchanged.
(3.) INSOFAR as the decision of a learned Judge is concerned, on which the petitioners rely and learned Chief Standing - Counsel contends that the record is different, as the State respondents had no opportunity to file a counter affidavit, the Court shall refrain comments on merits of the aspect for the simple reason that if the order of learned single Judge aggrieves the State respondents, then, they were free to take appropriate steps, which, as of date, they have not done. Thus, as long as the order of learned single Judge remains, the State respondents are obliged to act on it. However, this Court can make a comment that so far as these cases are concerned, the State respondents cannot contend nor have done so that they were without any lack of opportunity. Not only counter affidavit, in each of the case, but, supplementary affidavits were filed, with the record of survey. On record, is also the concern expressed by the Secretary Ministry of Labour, Government of India, and the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh on the quality of the field exercise and the survey. The latter aspect has been dealt in the subsequent part of his judgment.;