S.79 Juvenile Justice Act | Mere Employment Of Child For Less Salary, More Hours Not Sufficient For Offense Of 'Child Kept In Bondage': Telangana High Court
In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court held that simply employing a child for lower wages and extended hours does not automatically constitute an offence under the "child kept in bondage" Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.The order was passed by Justice K. Sujana in a Criminal Petition filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying quashment...
In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court held that simply employing a child for lower wages and extended hours does not automatically constitute an offence under the "child kept in bondage" Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The order was passed by Justice K. Sujana in a Criminal Petition filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying quashment of the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner/accused.
“Moreover, the essential ingredient to attract the offence under Section 79 of the Act is that the minor child must be kept in bondage for purpose of employment or the child's earnings should be withheld or such earnings shall be used by employer for his own purpose, where as the said allegations are not there in the complaint or in the charge sheet," the bench held.
Background:
The case in the criminal petition filed by the accused involved employing a minor for more than the prescribed working hours and paying them less than the minimum wage. The petitioner argued that the essential elements of the offence, namely keeping the child in bondage for employment or withholding/using their earnings, were not present in the case.
The court, upon reviewing the evidence and the chargesheet, concurred with the petitioner's arguments. It noted that while the complaint alleged that the child was made to work longer hours for less pay, it lacked specific details about the actual number of hours worked and the salary paid. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that the child was kept in bondage or that their earnings were withheld or misused by the employer.
“…this Court has perused the material available on record and found that alleged offence is under Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2OI5. The allegation against the petitioner is that inspite of using service of victim minor child who was aged about 17 years more than the prescribed working hours, he is paying less salary to the victim. It is pertinent to note that the averments in the complaint do not reveal that the petitioner how many hours victim worked and what is the salary paid by the petitioner," it was said.
The court emphasized that to attract the offence under Section 79 of the Act, it is essential to establish that the child was held in bondage for the purpose of employment, or that their earnings were either withheld or used by the employer for their own purposes. The mere fact of employing a child for less salary and more hours, without these additional elements, does not constitute the offence, it stated.
Thus, the petition was allowed and the criminal case against the petitioner was quashed.
Dhanee Singh @ Dhanush Singh vs. State of TS.
Case number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10779 OF 2023
Counsel for petitioner: Baglekar Akash Kumar
Counsel for respondent: S Ganesh (PP)