![]() Sunday, Aug 18, 2002 |
| National | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National
By Our Legal Correspondent
A Bench comprising Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, on Friday asked environmental lawyer, M.C. Mehta (on whose petition the Centre was directed to formulate a scheme) to file his response or suggest modifications in the scheme in three weeks. In response to the court's earlier direction, the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment said in its affidavit that according to a countrywide survey, about four lakh children and not 11.6 million as contended by Mr. Mehta are employed in various industries. It said that the scheme formulated recognised the opportunities of growth through education and skill enhancement as the main platform for preventing incidence of child labour in any form. It provided for non-formal education, vocational training, etc to working children with ineffective or no family support to facilitate their entry/re-entry into mainstream education. The Centre submitted that the Planning Commission had allocated Rs. 50 crores for this purpose and the programme would be implemented through non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Bench permitted the All-India Chamber of Match Industries, Sivakasi, to implead itself in the case when its counsel, K. Rajendra Chowdhry and S. Nandakumar, brought to the notice of the court that in Tamil Nadu which had around 10,000 match units, only 612 had covered their employees under the group insurance scheme.
Mr. Mehta told the court that the officers of the Union Government had not conducted the survey properly. He pointed out that as per the earlier order, there should be national, State and district level surveys for identification of child labour. He said the court had also empowered the officers to collect a fine of Rs. 20,000 for every child employed from the industry and the State Government concerned was required to contribute Rs. 5,000 and deposit the total sum Rs. 25,000 to the Rehabilitation Fund. But as the order was not implemented properly, this could not be realised. The court adjourned the proceedings to enable Mr. Mehta to file his response.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|