AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts leading up to this petition are as follows: The present petitioners were arraigned as respondents in the proceedings initiated by the Child Welfare Committee, Bangalore Urban District in Case No. GOK/WCD/JJ/CWC/BNG/(U)/970/2005. It was alleged against the petitioners who were the respondents therein that the present petitioners were residing at Jeevanbhimanagar, Bangalore, and a child aged about 11 hailing from Bellagi Taluk, Bagalkote belonging to the lambini tribe was brought by her parents Nemya and Leelavathi who were working as daily wage labourers. Since they had five children and could not properly look after all of them, they had thought it fit to entrust the child to the present petitioners-, who readily took her into their fold on the pretext that they would take care of her. They got her admitted to a local Government School at Jeevanbhimanagar. But it transpires that she was discontinued from her education after some time when the second petitioner herein gave birth to a child. Accordingly, the said girl namely Sharadha, was employed full time as their maid servant and also to take care of the newborn. The first petitioner was employed at the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Hebbal while the second petitioner was working with the Karnataka State Survey Department. Therefore, the young girl Sharadha was given the responsibility of taking care of the infant and also attending to household work. In this connection, the Association For Promotion Of Social Action (APSA), had received a call on its child helpline informing them that a child namely Sharadha was employed at the residence of the petitioners. The said organization had, on the basis of that information, with the assistance of the HAL Police Station, rescued the child from the house of the petitioners on 31.03.2005 and housed her at their shelter. She was then produced before the Child Welfare Committee on 4.4.2005. She was remanded by the Child Welfare Committee to the shelter of APSA. The child is claimed to have become accustomed to the routine of APSA. Proceedings were initiated against the present petitioners. The Committee, thereafter, had with reference to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Juvenile Justice Act'' for brevity), the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Central Service Conduct Rules, 1964 and the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, etc., arrived at findings of fact and held that the petitioners had utilized the services of the child for a period of three years and were therefore liable to pay a sum of Rs. 85,165/- (Rs. 24,000/- for 8 hours of work each day for the first two years and for the period April 2004 to March 2005 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and in terms of the Claims Notification dated 12.03.2004 of the Government of Karnataka an amount of Rs. 61,164/- for 8 hours of work and 8 hours of overtime work each day). This was a judgment passed by the Committee consisting of a Chairperson and four members, by its order dated 6.10.2005. The same having been challenged by way of an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 15171/2005 before the Fast Track Court, Bangalore, the said order of the Committee was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. It is this which is under challenge in the present petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily contend that the Child Welfare Committee in having imposed the penalty and having directed a departmental enquiry to be conducted against both these petitioners by their respective employers, is wholly without jurisdiction. He draws attention to Section 31 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which provides power to the Committee to dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of the children as well as to provide for their basic needs and protection of human rights and therefore, the Committee could not have imposed any such liability on the petitioners of directing them to pay for the labour allegedly utilized by the petitioners and overtime thereof and further having directed that Departmental Enquiry be held against the petitioners, all of which is without their power and jurisdiction, apart from holding the petitioners guilty for offences punishable under the provisions of the IPC, which is again without jurisdiction. The same having been affirmed in appeal, results in a miscarriage of justice as the Appellate Court has completely overlooked the legal provision under which the Committee has exercised its powers. The learned counsel would point out that any such jurisdiction could have been exercised by the Juvenile Justice Board as provided u/s 6 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which has been conferred with the power to deal exclusively with all provisions of this Act relating to juvenile protection. Therefore, it is a general power available with reference to any law that is violated and therefore would submit that the proceedings be set at naught.
While the learned Government Pleader would draw attention to sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Juvenile Act which provides that the powers conferred on the Board by or under the Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Sessions when the proceedings comes before it in appeal, revision or otherwise. Hence, he would submit that notwithstanding that the Committee did not have the power to impose the liability to pay wages or overtime to the juvenile and issue such other directions as it has, this court in its discretion is conferred with the power to deal with the matter in revision and hence, there is no bar for the reliefs granted by the Committee being affirmed by this court in revision. While it is true that the tenor of sub-section (2) of Section 6 is widely worded enabling this Court to exercise power when the proceedings come before the court in appeal, revision or otherwise, the fact remains that if the Committee was without jurisdiction insofar as imposing punishment under the provisions of the IPC or directing payment of wages and exercising other powers which was not conferred on it, the same being affirmed by this Court in revision may not be wholly justified without a fresh enquiry. would lead to a miscarriage of justice. This court is certainly empowered to remand the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for reconsideration on the allegations that are made against the petitioners. This however, would result in the matter being procrastinated and being stretched over the years.
Therefore, in order to give a quietus to the proceedings and to ensure that the child who is the subject matter of these proceedings sees some benefit out of the entire proceedings being initiated and also to ensure that the petitioners in turn are reminded of their responsibility as public servants and citizens of this country to respect the rights of a child, a via media suggested by this court was to direct the petitioners to pay a reasonable sum of money to compensate the child even if she was not exploited by being employed as their maid servant. It is therefore directed that the petitioners pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Sharadha, the victim, within a period of four weeks from today, to be deposited before the Child Welfare Committee, which shall ensure that the money reaches the hands of Sharadha and an acknowledgement in that regard shall be filed before this court in due course. In the event that the petitioners should default in depositing the amount, the matter be listed before this court for further orders. However subject to the above condition, the impugned order is modified as above.