CS Professional · Labour Laws and Practice · Constitution and Labour Laws
A company runs a chemical plant and employs 15-year-old Arjun in the mixing section. A labour inspector objects. The company argues that Article 24 only prohibits child employment in 'factories' and the plant is a mine-adjacent unit, not a factory. Which statement is correct about Article 24?
Article 24 prohibits employing children below fourteen years in any factory, mine or other hazardous employment, not just factories. Since Arjun is fifteen, the constitutional bar itself does not apply to him, although separate statutory limits on adolescents in hazardous work may still be relevant.
- AIt prohibits employing a child below fourteen in any factory, mine or other hazardous employment; Arjun at fifteen is outside its constitutional bar, though statutory restrictions on adolescents in hazardous work may still applyCorrect
- BIt bars employment of any person below eighteen in every kind of work, so the company is in breach
- CIt applies only to factories, so the company's argument succeeds entirely
- DIt bars employment below fourteen in factories only and leaves mines and hazardous work to the State
Explanation
Article 24 bars employing children below fourteen in factories, mines or any other hazardous employment. Arjun is fifteen, so the constitutional prohibition itself is not attracted, though ordinary legislation restricts adolescents in hazardous processes. The company's argument is wrong in its premise since Article 24 is not confined to factories, and the eighteen-year option misstates the article.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Constitution and Labour Laws shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Constitution and Labour Laws questions
- Meera, a woman worker at a private company in Pune, finds that she is paid less than her male colleague for the same work. Which constitutio…
- Employees of Kaveri Auto Components Ltd form a union and the management refuses to recognise it, arguing that the Constitution gives no righ…
- A manufacturing company runs a unit that makes rubber goods. A union argues that a worker's job loss from an illegal strike deserves protect…
- Ramesh, a worker in a Pune factory, is told by his employer that he must work without any payment because the employer 'has given him a job'…
- Parliament passes a law under Article 249 on a State List labour-related matter after the Rajya Sabha declares it of national interest. What…
- Meera, a worker at Bharat Bricks Pvt Ltd, is made to work in a brick kiln without wages because she owes the owner a loan of ₹8,000. She cla…