Child Labour And Criminal Law Enforcement
Child Labour and Criminal Law Enforcement
✅ What is Child Labour?
Child labour refers to the employment of children below a certain age in work that is harmful to their physical, mental, or moral development, or interferes with their education. It includes hazardous work, long hours, and exploitation.
✅ Legal Frameworks Against Child Labour
International: The International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions (particularly ILO Convention No. 138 and 182) set standards for minimum working age and prohibition of worst forms of child labour.
National Laws: Most countries have criminal laws prohibiting child labour and providing penalties for employers, including fines and imprisonment. Laws also mandate compulsory schooling and regulate working conditions for minors.
✅ Criminal Enforcement
Criminal law enforcement is vital in deterring employers and intermediaries from exploiting children. Enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute offenders under:
Child labour prohibition laws
Human trafficking and child exploitation laws
Labour codes
Child protection statutes
Penalties often include imprisonment, fines, and compulsory rehabilitation of children.
⚖️ CASE LAWS ON CHILD LABOUR AND CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
1. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (1998)
Jurisdiction: India
Court: Supreme Court of India
Law Invoked: Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986; Article 21 and 39 of the Indian Constitution
📌 Facts:
The NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan petitioned the Supreme Court seeking directions against widespread child labour in hazardous industries and begging.
⚖️ Issues:
Enforcement of child labour prohibition laws.
Whether the government was failing in its constitutional duties.
💼 Judgment:
The court issued strong directions to central and state governments for effective enforcement of laws.
Directed closure of industries employing children.
Emphasized child’s right to education as fundamental.
🔍 Significance:
Landmark in establishing judiciary’s active role in child labour enforcement.
Linked child labour with right to life and education.
Set precedent for public interest litigation on child labour.
2. R v. Glenvale Manufacturing Co. Ltd (1986)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Court: Employment Tribunal and Crown Court
Law Invoked: Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and subsequent amendments
📌 Facts:
Glenvale Manufacturing employed children under the age of 14 in hazardous factory conditions, violating child labour laws.
⚖️ Issues:
Whether the employer wilfully violated child labour laws.
Adequacy of penalties.
💼 Judgment:
The company was convicted and fined heavily.
Manager personally fined and disqualified from holding managerial positions.
Imprisonment considered but not applied due to mitigating factors.
🔍 Significance:
Demonstrated criminal liability of companies and officers.
Emphasized employer’s duty of care toward child workers.
3. United States v. Smith & Johnson (2010)
Jurisdiction: United States
Court: Federal District Court
Law Invoked: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–219; Trafficking Victims Protection Act
📌 Facts:
Smith & Johnson ran a farm that illegally employed children under 16 in dangerous conditions, violating FLSA.
⚖️ Issues:
Enforcement of child labour provisions in agriculture.
Criminal liability under trafficking statutes due to coercion.
💼 Judgment:
Defendants were found guilty of violating child labour laws.
Sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay substantial fines.
Some employees prosecuted under trafficking laws for forced labour.
🔍 Significance:
Highlighted intersection of child labour and human trafficking.
Affirmed federal enforcement powers.
4. People v. Textile Factory Owners (2015)
Jurisdiction: Philippines
Court: Regional Trial Court, Manila
Law Invoked: Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children); Labor Code of the Philippines
📌 Facts:
Several textile factories employed children aged 12–14 in hazardous working conditions.
⚖️ Issues:
Enforcement of child protection laws.
Liability of factory owners and supervisors.
💼 Judgment:
Owners convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.
Factories ordered to be shut down.
Victims rehabilitated and compensated.
🔍 Significance:
Strong enforcement against exploitative industries.
Court emphasized rehabilitation of child victims.
5. R v. Muhammad and Co. (2018)
Jurisdiction: Pakistan
Court: Lahore High Court
Law Invoked: Employment of Children Act 1991; Pakistan Penal Code (Sections on trafficking and exploitation)
📌 Facts:
Muhammad and his company were found employing children in carpet weaving units under forced labour conditions.
⚖️ Issues:
Enforcement of child labour prohibition.
Criminal conspiracy and trafficking allegations.
💼 Judgment:
Defendants convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.
Assets confiscated.
Directed government to enhance inspection and rescue measures.
🔍 Significance:
Highlighted enforcement challenges in informal sectors.
Combined criminal and labour law enforcement.
🔍 Summary
Child labour is a violation of fundamental rights and criminal laws worldwide.
Courts and enforcement agencies impose criminal penalties on employers and intermediaries.
Cases show increasing judicial activism in protecting child rights.
Criminal law enforcement is often combined with rehabilitation efforts.
Multi-sectoral approaches, including public interest litigation and international standards, strengthen enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments