[2025:RJ-JP:4346] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17551/2012 Dashrath Son Of Gopi Khatik (Since Deceased) Through His Wife Smt. Geeta Devi Wife Of Late Dashrath, aged 45 years, Resident of Village Mohammadgarh, Tehsil Uniara, District Tonk ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Labour Commissioner, Department Of Labour, Jaipur 2. The Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Department Of Labour, Tonk 3. The Labour Inspector Department Of Labour, Tonk 4. The District Collector, Tonk 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Uniara, Tonk ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6420/2006 Shiv Prasad S/o Gopal Khatik, Resident of Ward No.3 Uniyara, District Tonk ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour, Jaipur 2. The Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour, Tonk 3. The Labour Inspector, Department of Labour, Tonk 4. The District Collector, Tonk 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Uniyara, Tonk. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6443/2006 Motilal Khatik S/o Gopi, Resident of Mohammadgarh, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Labour Commissioner, Department Of Labour, Jaipur. 2. The Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Department Of Labour, Tonk. 3. The Labour Inspector, Department Of Labour, Tonk. 4. The District Collector, Tonk. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Uniyara Tonk. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7152/2006 Bajranga S/o Shri Ramnath Khatik, Resident of Dhikoliya, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk. ----Petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:4346] (2 of 4) [CW-17551/2012] Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Labour Commissioner, Department Of Labour, Jaipur. 2. The Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Department Of Labour, Tonk. 3. The Labour Inspector, Department Of Labour, Tonk. 4. The District Collector, Tonk. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Uniyara, Tonk ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17588/2012 Kamlesh Khatik son of Shri Gopi Khatik, aged 42 years, Resident of Village Mohammed Garh, Tehsil Uniara, District Tonk ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Labour Commissioner, Department Of Labour, Jaipur. 2. The Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Department Of Labour, Tonk. 3. The Labour Inspector, Department Of Labour, Tonk. 4. The District Collector, Tonk. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atma Ram Meena For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG Ms. Minaxi Jain, GC Ms. Moomal Rathore Ms. Supriya Rana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 31/01/2025 1. In all these writ petitions, identical issue is involved, hence, with the consent of counsel for both parties, all writ petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common order. 2. Petitioners have raised an issue that they have been saddled with penalty for engaging child labour in the factory, that too without sending the alleged child labour to the medical authority for determination of age. According to petitioners, the authority [2025:RJ-JP:4346] (3 of 4) [CW-17551/2012] which has imposed the penalty was not authorized to determine the age and the orders are without jurisdiction. 3. Counsel for petitioners has pointed out that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the order dated 30.05.2017 passed in D.B. Special Appeal No.246/2007: Rakesh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., whereby the Division Bench, quashed the penalty orders and remanded the matter back to the State Government to identify the child labour and to assess the age at the relevant point of time and then to proceed against petitioners. 4. On behalf of respondents, Additional Advocate General have opposed the writ petitions and submits that the penalty was rightly imposed against the petitioners since in the survey, petitioners were found guilty of engaging the child labour in their respective factories. 5. Having considered the rival contentions of counsel for both parties, this Court finds that the issue raised by petitioners in the present writ petitions has been answered by the Division Bench in the order dated 03.05.2017 and it has been observed that the prescribed procedure for determining the child labour is that the inspector concerned had to produce the person stated to be child labour before the Competent Authority as per Section 10 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. It was observed that the Competent Authority had to certify the age of child labour as per Rule 17 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Rues, 1988. Finally the Division Bench, after quashing the recovery notice, has passed the following directions:- [2025:RJ-JP:4346] (4 of 4) [CW-17551/2012] "It would be doubtful whether with passage of time, the respondents would be able to identify the persons working as labour and stated to be children as of today. But if the respondents can identify the persons and can produce them before the competent authority, the competent authority would determine the age as of the year 2005. If opined to be minor/ children as of the year 2005, the authorities under the Act can proceed in accordance with law. Alternatively, we note that the appellant is facing a prosecution on a FIR lodged. If in said proceedings it is found that the persons working in the factory were children, the impugned demands could be revived and enforced against the appellant. " 6. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is covered by the order of Division Bench dated 30.05.2017 (supra), these writ petitions are decided in the same terms of the order dated 30.05.2017 referred hereinabove. 7. Accordingly, the impugned recovery notices against the petitioners are quashed and respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in terms of order dated 30.05.2017. 8. In view of above, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. 9. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /6-10