Suresh, the occupier of an industrial establishment employing 126 employees of whom some are aged below 18 but completed the age of 14 years. Two of them submitted false birth certificate just to get into the job. The em

According to Sections 3, 3A, and 14(1) of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 which deals with the provisions as to prohibition of employment of children, adolescents, and penalties. If a person has not completed his/her 14 years of age, then there is a prohibition on the employment of such children. Above 14 and below 18 could be employed subject to compliance to conditions. In the instant case, it becomes irrelevant whether an employer is aware of or unaware of the misrepresentation made by the child as to his age, he will be absolutely liable for the contravention of Section 3 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. Even when he was sent for medical examination by the certifying surgeon, the employer could not escape from liability. He will be liable for punishment of up to 2 years imprisonment with less than 6 months and a fine of not less than rupees twenty thousand which may extend to rupees fifty thousand or with both. In the matter of M.C. Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others judgement dated December 10, 1996 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions to the State Government regarding welfare of child labour and held that the offending employer must be asked to pay compensation for every child employed in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The employer is also liable to pays penalty, which could be deposited in a fund to be known as Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund. The liability of the employer would not cease even if he would desire to disengage the child presently employed.