- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 64802 OF 2012 (L-RES) BETWEEN: MOHAMMED IQBAL, S/O. BANDUMIYA KUSUGAL, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: PROP. OF FAIROJ BOOK MANUFACTURES PATIL GALLI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR 4TH CIRCLE, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND DESIGNATED ENQUIRY OFFICER, UNDER CHILD LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND CONTROL ACT 1986), DHARWAD DIVISION AT HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2006 BEARING NO.¸ÀPÁDºÀÄ/ ¨ÁPÁPÁ/¹DA-58/2002-03 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AS A NULL AND VOID AND ETC. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present petition is filed calling in question the order bearing No.Sa.Kaa.Aa.Hu/Ba.Ka.Ka/CR-58/2002-03, dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure-F to the writ petition), passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Designated Enquiry Officer, Dharwad Division, Hubli, Dharwad District. 2. The relevant facts, in a nut-shell, leading to the present writ petition are that, the petitioner who is engaged in the business of book binding, was served with a notice dated 20.06.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent–Assistant Labour Commissioner and Designated Enquiry Officer, stating that the 1st respondent–Senior Labour Inspector, Hubli, had submitted an application for recovery of Rs.20,000/- on the allegation that the petitioner had engaged child labour in his book binding business. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered appearance in the proceedings and filed his objections by stating that the worker employed by him by name Saleem Bijapur was more than 14 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012 years old and hence he had not committed any offence under the provisions of the Child & Adolescents Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 19861. In support of his contention, the petitioner also produced a medical certificate dated 21.03.2003 issued by the Department of Radiology, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Hubballi. 3. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the proceedings before the 2nd respondent was adjourned on various dates since the Presiding Officer was on leave on that on 09.11.2006, the matter was adjourned to 23.11.2006 for passing of orders. However, upon enquiry and upon making an application for requisite copies, the petitioner learnt that the 2nd respondent has recorded the statement of the 1st respondent on 09.11.2006 and on the said basis, the impugned order bearing No. No.Sa.Kaa.Aa.Hu/Ba.Ka.Ka/CR-58/2002-03, dated 28.11.2006 was passed, wherein the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Being aggrieved the present petition is filed. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to contest the case on its merits. It is further contended that the petitioner, having taken a specific defence that the concerned workman was aged more than 14 years, the adjudication as to the age of the workman has to be done in terms of Section 10 of the Act, wherein the Inspector was required to refer the adjudication as to age for a decision by the prescribed medical authority. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent. 6. It is forthcoming that the petitioner had filed his objections dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) to the notice dated 20.06.2003 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). It is further forthcoming from the record of proceedings (Annexure- D to the writ petition) that on 09.11.2006, the matter was adjourned for orders on 23.11.2006. It is also noticed that the 2nd respondent has passed the final order on 28.11.2006. It is noticed from Annexure-E that the statement of the 1st - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012 respondent has been recorded. However, there is no cross- examination of the 1st respondent. 7. Further, having regard to the specific contention putforth by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was required to adjudicate upon the age of the workman concerned. 8. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to contest the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent against him on its merits. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The order bearing No. No.Sa.Kaa.Aa.Hu/ Ba.Ka.Ka/CR-58/2002-03 dated 29.11.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. iii) The petitioner or his authorized representative shall appear before the 2nd respondent on 24.09.2025 without the requirement of any further notice being issued in this regard. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012 iv) Consequent to the appearance of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent shall conduct further proceedings in accordance with law, more specifically having regard to the stand of the petitioner wherein the age of the workman has been disputed. v) All contentions of the parties on the merits of the matter are left open. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57