Labour Law

PSDA

M.C. Mehta v. State of

Tamil Nadu and others
(AIR 1997 SC 699)

Court: Supreme Court

Bench: Kuldip Singh, B.L. Hansaria, S.B. Majumdar
Health Topics: Child and adolescent health, Occupational
health
Human Rights: Right to education, Right to favourable
working conditions, Right to work

- Vani Gupta
23310303815
4-D
 Facts

The Petitioner was an individual concerned about the high rate of employment
of children in the Match factories of Sivakasi in Kamaraj District of Tamil Nadu
State. He contended that such employment was hazardous and unconstitutional.
Being aggrieved, he filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The Respondent Government did not deny the existence of child labour, but
instead offered suggestions to ameliorate the problem. The Supreme Court
issued an order in 1990 calling for a ban on child labour in the manufacturing
process of matchsticks and fireworks. However, subsequent to this order, an
accident occurred in the Sivakasi Match Factories in which 39 people died.
After this was published, the Court took suo moto cognizance of the incident.
The Court appointed a Committee to investigate the matter and make
suggestions, such as payment of compensation.
 Judgment
Our constitutional makers were wise enough to keep into consideration the future of the
children in India. The situation of children born in India was not pleasant at the time of
independence. Therefore, the makers of our constitution prohibited employment of children
below the age of 14 in factories under Article 24 and imposed a duty on the state to provide fee
and compulsory education of children under Article 45 of the Constitution. After the decision
of Unni Krishnan[1], Article 45 has acquired the status of a fundamental right. The Court
acknowledged that despite the presence of such provisions in our constitution, children are still
exploited and forced into child labour even after 50 years of independence of our country.

Sivakasi was considered as one of the worst regions that violated these provisions by
employing young children in its match factories. The court noted that the manufacturing
process of matches and fireworks is hazardous to the health of children and may give rise to
fatal accidents.The court noted that the process of manufacturing matches and fireworks is
hazardous and may give rise to accidents. By relying on Article 39(f) and Article 45 of the
Constitution, the court gave certain directions to improve the quality of life of children
employed in the factories. The Court also felt the need of constituting a committee to oversee
the directions passed. The committee was to consist of (1) Shri R.K. Jain, a senior advocate;
(2) Ms. Indira Jaisingh, another senior advocate; and (3) Shri K.C. Dua, Advocate.

The committee has done a commendable job. It submitted its report on 11th September, 1991
containing the following recommendations –

(a) State of Tamil Nadu should ensure that children are not employed in fire work factories.

(b) The children employed in the match factories for packing purposes should work in separate
premises.

(c) Employers should let children work for more than 6 hours a day.

(d) Proper transport facilities should be provided by the employers and State Government to
the children.
(e) Facilities for recreation, socialization and education should be provided either in the factory
or close to the factory.

(f) Employers should make arrangements for providing basic diets for the children and in case
they fail to do so, the Government should provide for basic diet to the children.

(g) Daily wages should be abolished and payment should be made on monthly basis. Wages
should be commensurate to the work done by the children.

(h) All the workers working in the industry, whether in registered factories or in unregistered
factories, whether in cottage industry or on contract basis, should be brought under the
Insurance Scheme.

(i) Welfare Fund – For Sivakasi area, instead of present committee, a committee should be
headed by a retired High Court Judge or a person of equal status with two social workers, who
should be answerable either to this Hon’ble Court or to the High Court as may be directed by
this Hon’ble Court. Employers should be directed to deposit Rs.2/- per month per worker
towards welfare fund and the State should be directed to give the matching contribution. The
employers of all the industries, whether it is registered or unregistered, whether it is cottage
industry or on contract basis, to deposit Rs.2/- per month per worker.

(j) A National Commission for children’s welfare should be set up to prepare a scheme for
child labour abolition in a phased manner. Such a Commission should be answerable to this
Hon’ble Court directly and should report to this Hon’ble Court at periodical intervals about the
progress.

President of the All India Chamber of Match Industries, Sivakasi in his affidavit rejected the
recommendations of the committee. However, the court didn’t consider the affidavit of the
President.

As per the 1971 census, 4.66 per cent of the child population in India consisted of working
children which meant that around 10.7 million children were working at that time. According
to 1981 census the figure went up to 11.16 million working children. None of the above figure
includes children working in the unorganized sector. The court stated that the actual number of
working children in India is between 44 million to 100 million. (As per 1991 census). This
indicates that Child labour is widely practiced in India. The Court stated that without the efforts
of the Central and State Government this problem will never be solved.

Constitutional Framework

The Court dealt with this issue with a wider perspective by taking into account the situation of
Child Labour in other parts of the country and discussed how the constitution mandates health,
development and education of children through its provisions.

Article 24 – Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc. – No child below the age
of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other
hazardous employment. 39(e). that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and
the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity
to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength:

Article 39(f) -Children should be given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy
manner, in conditions of freedom and dignity and childhood should be protected against
exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.

Article 41 – Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.- The State
shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for
securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old
age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.

Article 45 – Provision for free and compulsory education for children.- The State shall
endeavor to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution,
for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.

Article 47 – Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to
improve public health. – The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the
standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary
duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the
consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are
injurious to health.
International commitments

Convention on Rights of the Child to which India is a party to, affirms that children’s right
require special protection and it aims, not only to provide such protection, but also to ensure
the continuous improvement in the situation of children all over the world, as well as their
development and education in conditions of peace and security. Thus, the Convection not only
protects the child’s civil and political right, but also extends protection to child’s economic,
social, cultural and humanitarian rights.

International Labour Organization has laid down 5 main focus areas for the gradual elimination
of Child Labour-

1. Prohibition of children labour.

2. Protecting child labour at work.
3. Attacking the basic causes of child labour.
4. Helping children to adapt to future work.
5. Protecting the children of working parents.

A royal commission on Labour was also established in 1929 under the British Government to
inquire into various matters relating to labour in India. The commission examined the
conditions of Child Labour in India and found out that children are made to work for any
number of hours every day. The recommendations of the committee were discussed in the
Legislative assembly and The Children (pleading of labour) Act, 1933 was passed, which the
first statutory enactment dealing with child labour. Today there are various legislations that
prohibit the employment of child labours. Section 67 of the Factories Act, 1948, Section 109
of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, Section 45 of the Mines Act, 1952, Section 21 of the
Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, Section 3 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, Section 24 of the
Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 strongly prohibit child
labour.

The court expressed its disappointment towards the state of children who were employed
inspite of the presence of the aforesaid provisions and listed out the main causes of Child
Labour in India:(1) poverty; (2) low wages of the adult; (3) unemployment; (4) absence of
schemes for family allowance; (5) migration to urban areas; (6) large families; (7) children
being cheaply available; (8) non-existence of provisions for compulsory education; (9)
illiteracy and ignorance of parents; and (10) traditional attitudes, were held to be the main
causes of Child Labour in India.

Solution contemplated by the Supreme Court

The Court explored certain ways through which the problem of Child labour can be solved. It
stated that the problem of Child labour can be solved by insisting on compulsory education.
Poor citizens don’t send their children to schools due to lack of money. Therefore, unless a
family is provided with a stable source of income the problem of child labour will not be solved.
Since, it is not possible for such parents to educate their children, the state owes a duty to come
forward and discharge its obligation in this regard.

Final Orders –

1. The court ordered to conduct a survey of child laboursthat could be given an

alternative source of income to help in their education.
2. Those areas of employment should be identified which are hazardous on human
health, especially children, and ranked. The most hazardous employment may rank
first in priority, to be followed by comparatively less hazardous and so on.
3. Employment must be given to the parents of the child. Such an employment can be
given in the same industry where the child is employed.
4. In those cases where alternative employment cannot be made available, the parent
of the concerned child would be paid the income which would be earned on the
corpus, which would be a sum of Rs.85, 000/- for each child, every month. The
employment given or payment made would cease to be operative if the child would
not be sent by the parent/guardian for education.
5. On discontinuation of the employment of the child, his education would be assured
in suitable institution with a view to make it a better citizen.
6. The court pointed out that Article 45 mandates compulsory education for all
children until they complete the age of 14 years; it is also required to be free. It
would be the duty of the Inspectors to see that this call of the Constitution is carried
out.
7. A district could be the unit of collection so that the executive head of the district
keeps a watch on the work of the Inspectors. Further, in view of the magnitude of
the task, a separate cell in the Labour Department of the appropriate Government
 would be created. Monitoring of the scheme would also be necessary and the
Secretary of the Department could perhaps do this work. Overall monitoring by the
Ministry of Labour, Government of India, would be beneficial and worthwhile.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed off.

 CONCLUSION
Child labour is a practice of employing children in economic activities on a part time or full
time basis. Children employed in such economic activities are deprived of their childhood and
it is harmful for their physical and mental health. Child Labour is a major problem in our
country. In the present case, Sivakasi was taken as one of the worst offenders for violating
fundamental rights of children.

Article 24 imposes a duty on the state to provide every child below the age of 14 with free and
compulsory education. After the Unni Krishnan Case, this duty has acquired the status of a
fundamental right. In this case, the Supreme Court discussed various provisions prohibiting
employment of children in India. The Supreme Court ordered to send a copy of this judgment
to Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and Union Territories and to the Secretary of
Ministry of Labour, Government of India for their information and doing the needful.

On the issue of child labour, the Court held that this malady was not prevalent in Sivakasi
alone. Therefore, the Court held that it was necessary to address this issue at a national level
in order to find a suitable solution that would rid the country of this problem. The Court held
that Articles 24, 39(e) and 9(f), 41 and 47 obligated the State to abolish child labour while
ensuring healthy development of the child. The Court held that India had also ratified the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under Article 32 the Government of India is required
to take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure protection of the
child from hazardous exploitation and its healthy development. In the domestic sphere, the
Court held that there are several pieces of legislation such as the Child Labour (Prohibition
and Regulation) Act, 1986 (the Act) that protect children from exploitation. However, the
Court took note of the fact that poverty compels a family to push their child into hazardous
employment. The Court held that it was thus necessary to fulfill the legislative intent behind
the Act to ensure the healthy development of a child. The Court directed that anyone
contravening the provisions of the Act would pay a sum of Rs 20,000 to the concerned
authority. This sum would be deposited in a Child Labour Rehabilitation cum Welfare Fund
(the Fund). This income from the Fund would be used for the concerned child.

As to the provision of employment of an adult in place of a child, the Court held that it is not
possible for the Respondent Government to ensure such a uniform scheme. However, the
Court held that the Government could, in cases where alternative employment is not possible,
deposit a sum of Rs 5,000 to the Fund, to be used by the concerned adult. In this case, the
child would be spared the prospect of hazardous employment as the family would gain an
additional source of income.

The Court issued certain guidelines in this regard to be followed by the Respondent
Government such as:

 Identification of the hazardous industries in which child labour is common;

  Provision of alternative employment, and in cases where it is not possible, to provide
the family with a sum of Rs 25,000 each month, per child. This employment or
payment would be discontinued if the child was not sent for education;

Where non-hazardous jobs are concerned, the working hours of the child would be not more
than 6 hours a day, and would receive education for two hours a day. The cost of education
was to be borne by the employer.

Decision Excerpts

“Abolition of child labour is definitely a matter of great public concern and significance.”
Para. 14.

“It may be that the problem would be taken care of to some extent by insisting on compulsory
education.” Para. 27.