Supreme Court directions to combat child labour have been buried in law journals.

The problems of enforcing judicial orders related to social issues are compounded by government apathy and powerful vested interests working against them. Child labour is one field where this is evident. A reading of some of the significant orders passed by the Supreme Court on the eve of the International Child Labour Day would show that most of them are forgotten and lack follow-up action.

Two decades back, the apex court had released several bonded labour families that included children. Later, petitions were moved specifically referring to the problem of child labour. The court then set up committees to study the situation in each area. Devoid of any follow-up action, either by the court or any other machinery, the orders passed in favour of children have been forgotten by the nation.

Until a decade ago, the Supreme Court was active in enforcing benevolent child labour practices and monitoring employment of children for hazardous activities. The evil practice was found to exist in at least 25 regions. Some of the industries using child labour are fireworks, slate-pencil mines, glass, carpet, diamond-cutting, gems, silk, brocades, and the circus. The issues were taken up in public interest petitions, mainly in the M C Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu and Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India. Many children were killed in fires in Sivakasi while the case was still pending in the court. Therefore, the court set up a committee to study the problem of child labour not only in the fireworks industry but in other fields as well.

The court ordered employers who engaged children to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 20,000 for every child. The inspectors appointed under law would deposit the money in the Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund. Authorities were also asked to ensure that an adult member from the liberated-child's family got a job in lieu of the child. It was left to the state governments to sort out the details. The state governments also had to contribute Rs 5,000 per child to the welfare fund. There were 10 additional directions in this regard. However, these directives are long-forgotten and the situation has improved little. Few labour officers in the labour ministry may remember the order to set up a welfare fund for liberated child labour.

Employing children below 14 years is banned by the Constitution. Youth aged between 14-18 can work only with the permission of a doctor appointed under the Factories Act. Under the Employment of Children Act, no child below 15 years can be employed in transportation of passengers, goods, mail, and at the ports. Those aged between 16-18 in the transport business must get rest for 12 hours between work shifts. The Children (Pledging of Labour) Act has banned any agreement between parents and employers to allow their children to work. Articles 39(f) and 45 of the Constitution mandate that children should be protected from exploitation and should be given free and compulsory education till they are 14 years old.

In a 1991 judgment, the court tried to balance constitutional law and ground realities. It passed a set of directions regarding the nature of work given to young children. Children should be employed only in the packaging process, away from the place of production to avoid contamination and accidents. Minimum wage for children should be fixed. The court suggested 60 per cent of adult wages as a reasonable amount but urged the state governments to fix a higher wage if possible. The government should also ensure the children for Rs 50,000; paying the premium for group insurance should be the liability of the employer. Other directions regarding education, recreation, and medical facilities were also issued. These are recalled here only to display that they are all now practically forgotten.

In one series of orders, the Supreme Court tried to save children of prostitutes from the trade. A committee was set up to study how these socially-handicapped children could be provided with separate schools and hostels. After the committee submitted the report, two judges who were handling the petition differed in their view of the solution to the problem. So. they referred the question to the Chief Justice, for a decision to be taken a larger bench. Like several other cases referred to larger benches, this one also vanished from the roster. The court appears to have lost enthusiasm in this field of public interest litigation (PIL). Pressing political PILs have overshadowed the plight of children.




http://www.business-standard.com/common/news_article.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFlag=BO&autono=
325707

---