PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,S.P.SHARMA,J. - (1.) The appellant was aggrieved by notices/penalties levied on the basis that labour employed by the appellant was a child labour and as per the decision of the Supreme Court Rs. 20,000/- per child labour was liable to be paid by the appellant.
(2.) The grievance of the appellant was that the Inspector appointed under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 was not authorised to decide whether the labour working was child labour and as per Section 16(2) of the Act a procedure was prescribed. The prescribed procedure was that the Inspector concerned had to produce the persons stated to be a child before the competent authority as per Section 10. The said competent authority had to certify the age as per Rule 17 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Rules, 1988. The competent authority was the appropriate medical authority notified in different States.
(3.) In the instant case, said procedure was not followed. The person working as labour, stated to be a child, which fact was denied by the appellant were not produced before the appropriate medical authority.;