|  | | Labour Commissionerate | | Labour & Employment Department, Government of Gujarat |
| |
|
| |  |  |  | | |
| | HomeSchemes Child Labour State Action planChapter – 2 Role of Judiciary to combat child labour | | Role of Judiciary to combat child labour | | | The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MC Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu had given certain directions, to withdraw children from the hazardous working occupation and rehabilitate them. Where children are allowed to work in non-hazardous occupation, the condition of work shall be regulated and improved. The court had directed the government to | | | . | Survey for identification of working children; withdrawal of children working in hazardous industries and ensuring their education in appropriate instructions; contribution at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per child to be paid by the offenders to a welfare fund to be established for this. |
|---|
| . | Employment to one adult member of the withdrawn child’s family and if that is not possible, a contribution of Rs. 5,000 to the welfare funds to be made by the State Government. |
|---|
| . | Financial assistance to the families of the children so withdrawn to be paid out of the interest earnings on the corpus of Rs. 20,000 / 25,000 deposited in the welfare fund as long as the child is actually sent to school. |
|---|
| . | Regulating working hours for children in non-hazardous occupations, the court held that they should not exceed six hours per day with one paid holiday in a week and education expenditure to be borne by the employer. |
|---|
| | | The Ministry of Labour was required to appraise the court within a period of a year of the judgement regarding the compliance. The ministry submitted an affidavit in this regard. According to the survey of 1996-97, child labour population is 5,54,970, where as the child labour population in the census year 1991 was 11.18 million. This clearly indicates that the new figures have come as a gross underestimation. | | | The court observed that State Government did face many problems while implementing the Supreme Court directions, namely : (i) the time of six months scheduled for the nation-wide survey was too brief for the States to come out with a near correct figure; (ii) the survey was much publicised and that enabled the offenders to ensure that the surveyors remained unaware of the actual number of child laborers; (iii) the payment of compensation by the offending employer is not made foolproof. Even before the inspectors could fine the offenders, they would obtain a stay from the local trial courts against being fined on one pretext or the other. Thus the exercise that could have been very significant has not borne any fruit. | | | The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though the Employment of Children Act, 1938 did not include the construction work on projects because the construction industry was not a process specified in the Schedule to the Act, yet, such construction was a hazardous occupation and under Article 24 children under 14 could not be employed in a hazardous occupation. Article 24 was enforceable even, in the absence of implementing legislation, in a ‘public interest’ proceeding.23 | | | The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that children should not be employed in hazardous jobs in factories for manufacture of match boxes and fireworks, and positive steps should be taken for the welfare of such children as well as for improving the quality of their life.24 Again, Supreme Court directed that the employers of children below 14 years must comply with the provisions of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, providing for compensation, employment of their parents/guardians and their education. 25 |
| |
|
| | Copyright © 2009 Labour Commissionerate. All Rights Reserved.
This page is last updated on : 12/7/2010
| |
| |
| |
|