l Law Responses To Forced Child Labour In Factories
Criminal Law Responses to Forced Child Labour in Factories
Forced child labour—using minors below legal working ages or coercing children to work in hazardous conditions—is a serious crime under international law and domestic criminal law in most jurisdictions. Legal responses typically include:
Child labour prohibitions – Criminal law often prohibits employing children under statutory minimum age in factories or hazardous work.
Forced labour / coercion – Forcing children to work under threats, deception, or coercion is punishable.
Exploitation and endangerment – Laws often include penalties for child exploitation, endangering life/health, or human trafficking.
Corporate liability – Factory owners, managers, and intermediaries can be held criminally liable.
Penalties typically include imprisonment, fines, confiscation of illegal profits, and closure of offending factories. Courts also emphasize victim protection and rehabilitation.
Case 1: Bangladesh Garment Factory Case (2013)
Facts:
Several garment factories employed children aged 12–15 despite labour laws prohibiting employment under 14 in hazardous industries.
Children were forced to work long hours with no schooling, in poor conditions.
Charges:
Violation of child labour laws, exploitation of minors, endangerment of health and safety.
Outcome:
Factory owners were arrested and sentenced to 3–5 years imprisonment.
Factories were fined, and children were removed and enrolled in rehabilitation programs.
Significance:
Highlighted the enforcement of labour laws against child exploitation in industrial sectors.
Established precedent for criminal liability for owners even when employment was subcontracted.
Case 2: India – Delhi Toy Factory Case (2014)
Facts:
Police raided a toy manufacturing unit in Delhi and rescued 35 children aged 10–13.
Children were working 12–14 hours per day under poor conditions and with physical punishment for mistakes.
Charges:
Employing children below legal age, forced labour, and exploitation under the Indian Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and IPC Sections 374 (injury to health or life) and 372 (selling minor for labour).
Outcome:
Factory owners received prison terms of 2–4 years.
Authorities imposed heavy fines and closed the factory.
Significance:
Emphasized that even low-skilled manufacturing sectors like toys can be prosecuted for child labour.
Demonstrated criminal liability of both direct owners and intermediaries who recruit child labour.
Case 3: China – Forced Child Labour in Electronics Factory (2016)
Facts:
A factory producing electronic components in Guangdong province was found employing children aged 13–15, coerced to work overtime under threat of wage withholding.
Children suffered health issues due to prolonged exposure to solder fumes and repetitive work.
Charges:
Violation of child labour regulations, endangering minors, and labour coercion under the Chinese Criminal Law Article 261 (endangering public safety via violation of labour laws).
Outcome:
Factory manager sentenced to 3 years imprisonment; fines imposed.
Factory ordered to improve working conditions and release underage workers.
Significance:
Demonstrated application of criminal law to industrial factories employing minors in hazardous conditions.
Highlighted role of health and safety violations in aggravating criminal liability.
Case 4: Pakistan – Football Stitching Workshop Case (2015)
Facts:
Children aged 9–14 were employed in football stitching workshops in Sialkot, working 10–12 hours per day.
Children were denied education and were threatened with physical punishment for underperformance.
Charges:
Violation of child labour laws, forced labour, and exploitation under the Pakistan Employment of Children Act.
Outcome:
Workshop owner sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
All child workers were rescued and enrolled in schools with NGO assistance.
Significance:
Showed international awareness and prosecution of child labour in informal manufacturing sectors.
Reinforced criminal liability for factory owners using coercion.
Case 5: United States – Child Labour in Textile Factory (2012)
Facts:
In a textile factory in California, children aged 13–15 were employed illegally, performing repetitive and dangerous textile work.
Factory misclassified them as interns and paid below minimum wage.
Charges:
Violation of federal child labour laws (Fair Labor Standards Act), forced labour, and endangerment.
Outcome:
Factory owner sentenced to 18 months imprisonment; restitution paid to victims.
Factory shut down and subjected to federal labour monitoring.
Significance:
Demonstrated that developed countries also enforce criminal sanctions for child exploitation in factories.
Emphasized that misclassification and coercion are part of criminal liability.
Key Takeaways
Criminal liability applies to factory owners, managers, and recruiters who employ children illegally or use coercion.
Penalties include imprisonment, fines, and factory closure, along with victim protection measures.
Applicable laws may include child labour statutes, labour codes, human trafficking statutes, and criminal codes addressing endangerment or exploitation.
Enforcement spans both developed and developing countries, across formal and informal manufacturing sectors.
Cases consistently show that coercion, hazardous working conditions, and denial of education aggravate liability.
RELATED Blog
comments