Working kids

The Tribune, New Delhi, 23 December 2014

Working kids

The editorial “2014, devastating for children” (December 11) says that children below the age of 14 cannot be employed in hazardous occupations. Does it mean that in non-hazardous occupations, like domestic work, they can be employed? No. The Supreme Court has given directions regarding the manner in which children working in hazardous occupations are to be withdrawn from work and rehabilitated. Hopefully, the conferment of the Nobel Peace Prize on Kailash Satyarthi will sensitise the government and public to improve the lot of children.

Dr Rajender Goyal, Bahadurgarh

The original write-up sent to The Tribune read thus:

Domestic work is hazardous occupation for children below 14 years

The editorial, “2014, devastating for children” (Dec 11) raises a poser that “Children below the age of 14 cannot be employed in hazardous occupations, does that mean in non-hazardous occupations, like domestic work, even a five-year-old can be employed?” The answer is categorical no in view of Government notification effective from 10 October 2006 whereby the Government enlisted children working in the domestic households as well as roadside eateries and motels under the prohibited list of hazardous occupations. Earlier only Government servants were prohibited from employing children as domestic servants.  Moreover, the Supreme Court of India, in the M.C. Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu case (1990), has given certain directions regarding the manner in which children working in hazardous occupations are to be withdrawn from work and rehabilitated, and the manner in which the working conditions of children working in non-hazardous occupations are to be regulated and improved:-

 1. Employment of children within the match factories directly connected with the manufacturing process upto final production of match sticks or fireworks should not at all be permitted. They can, however, be employed in the process of packing which should be done in an area away from

the place of manufacture to avoid exposure to accident.

2. They should be given at least 60 per cent of the prescribed minimum wage for an adult employee in the factories doing the same job.

3. Under the Factories Act, there is a statutory requirement for providing facilities for recreation and medical attention. The respondent State is directed to enforce these two aspects so that the basic requirements are attended to. Attention may also be given to ensure provision of a basic diet to these children during the working period with a view to ensuring sound physical growth. Facilities for general education as also job oriented education should be made available to them and the school time should be so adjusted that employment is not affected.

4. The State shall take appropriate steps in the matter of creating the welfare fund and finalising the method of contribution and collection thereof by 1st January, 1991 so that the consolidated money would be available for implementing welfare schemes.

5. The State shah also ensure that every employee working in these match factories is compulsorily insured for a sum of Rs.50,000. The premium for the insurance policy should be the liability of the employer to meet as a condition of service.

6. A committee consisting of the District Judge of the area, the District Magistrate of the District, a public activist operating in the area, a representative of the employees and local labour officer to oversee all the direct ions of the Court.

Hopefully, conferment of Nobel Peace Prize- 2014  on Sh. Kailash Satyarthi   will sensitize the government and general public alike to improve the lot of children in true sense.

Dr Rajender Goyal, Advocate

Bahadurgarh

Governor can act independently of/without the aid and advise of elected govt (ie eo nomine) in the matter of appointment etc in Universities

In the matter of  appointment etc in Universities , Governor can act independently of State Government being a Statutory Authority as envisaged in the given University Act as borne out by under noted judgments:-

In State of Gujrat v Justice RA Mehta (2013) the SC held that “under the scheme of our Constitution, the Governor is synonymous with the State Government, and can take an independent decision upon his/her own discretion only when he/she acts as a statutory authority under a particular Act, or under the exception(s), provided in the Constitution itself.

In Hardwari Lal v. G.D. Tapase & Ors., AIR 1982 P & H 439, the powers of the Governor, with respect to the appointment/removal of the Vice-Chancellor of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak under the Maharshi Dayanand University (Amendment) Act, 1980, were considered, wherein a direction was sought with regard to the renewal of the term of the Vice-Chancellor of the said University. Certain promises had been made in connection with the same, while making such appointment. The Court held that, as the Governor was the ex-officio Chancellor of the University, therefore, by virtue of his office, he was not bound to act under the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

In Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad & Ors. v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra & Ors., (1997) 10 SCC 264, the Supreme Court dealt with the power of the Governor of the State of U.P. ex-officio, with respect to all the Universities established under the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act 1973). Section 68 of the Act, 1973 empowers the Chancellor to entertain any question, related to the appointment, selection, promotion or termination of any employee in the University.The Supreme Court held that, when the Governor ex-officio, acts as the Chancellor of a University, he acts under Section 68 of the Act, 1973, and discharges statutory duties as mentioned under the Act, 1973