Child labour continues to be a sensitive issue under Indian law. While many families run businesses with support from family members, involving a minor in such activities often leads to legal scrutiny. In this article, we examine whether employing a child below 14 in a family-aided workshop is legal, through the lens of legal facts, issues, principles, and judgments.
Facts of the Case
An employer runs a small automobile repair workshop with the assistance of his wife and two adult sons. He also engages a 13-year-old boy, claiming that the child is a distant relative and only helps in minor errands. The employer argues that the workshop is a family enterprise and thus, the child’s employment does not violate any law.
A social worker reports the case to local authorities. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act come into the spotlight. Investigations reveal that the child often skips school and performs tasks involving tools and minor repairs. Authorities initiate proceedings under child labour laws.
Issues of the Case
The legal challenge centers around a few pressing questions:
- Can a child below 14 years legally work in a workshop, even if it’s run by family members?
- Does the nature of the work matter in determining legality?
- Is there any exception for family-run establishments under Indian law?
- Does the key clause in the child labour law make a difference between hazardous and non-hazardous work?
These issues require a close look at both constitutional mandates and statutory provisions to determine whether the employment is lawful or punishable.
Principles and Related Case Law
Legal Provisions
- Article 24 of the Indian Constitution: Prohibits employment of children below 14 in any factory or hazardous occupation.
- Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (Amended 2016): Prohibits all employment of children under 14, except when helping in family enterprises, provided the work is not hazardous and does not affect education.
- Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: Makes education a fundamental right for children aged 6–14.
The key element in all these laws is the balance between protecting a child’s right to education and preventing exploitation, even within family-run establishments.
Relevant Case Law
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1997 SC 699):
The Supreme Court stressed the state’s responsibility to eliminate child labour and directed strict implementation of child protection laws.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 AIR 802):
Reinforced that child labour is a form of forced labour when it deprives the child of dignity and education, regardless of where it occurs.
Judgement
In similar cases, courts have ruled that even in family-run workshops, the employment of children must be limited, supervised, and non-hazardous. The presence of tools, machines, and heavy equipment in an automobile repair shop classifies it as a hazardous occupation under the Schedule of the Child Labour Act.
In this case, the court found that although the employer claimed familial ties, the workshop involved hazardous tasks. The child’s absence from school and exposure to tools violated both the Child Labour Act and the Right to Education Act.
The judge ruled the employment illegal and imposed a penalty on the employer. The court also directed local authorities to enroll the child in school and conduct regular inspections of similar workshops.
