Arrest Warrant Stayed to Facilitate Recalling Application and Compounding of Child Labour Law Violations

The Petitioner, an Area Manager for M/s Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited (Pantaloons), was named as an accused in a criminal complaint (No. 32/Child Labour Cases/2025) filed by the Labour Inspector.

During an inspection on December 10, 2023, it was alleged that statutory notices under Section 12 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, were not displayed at the Rajnandgaon establishment.

While the Store Manager (Accused No. 14) appeared and compounded the offense by paying a fine of ₹2,000, the Petitioner failed to appear, claiming summons were never delivered to his registered address.

Consequently, the Labour Court issued arrest warrants against the Petitioner on February 2, 2026, and February 24, 2026.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashment of the proceedings and the arrest warrants.

1. Whether the arrest warrants issued against the Petitioner by the Labour Court should be stayed or recalled in light of the fact that the offense has been compounded by a co-accused?

2. Whether the quashment of the entire criminal proceeding is warranted at this stage?

The Court applied the procedural provisions of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, specifically Section 12 (requirement to display notices) and Section 14 (penalties for contravention).

The Court further leaned on the inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide equitable relief regarding the execution of warrants in a "complaint case" where custodial interrogation or arrest is generally not a primary requirement.

The Court observed that the Petitioner was the Area Manager and the primary grievance related to the issuance of arrest warrants following his non-appearance.

The Petitioner argued that since the Store Manager (the "Occupier" under the Act) had already appeared and compounded the matter by paying a fine, the Petitioner’s involvement was redundant.

The State contended that the warrants were a necessary consequence of the Petitioner's failure to respond to judicial process.

The Court noted that in a complaint case of this nature—where the offense is penal but involves compliance violations—arrest is generally not required for the adjudication process.

Rather than quashing the entire case, the Court reasoned that the Petitioner should be granted an opportunity to submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court and apply for a recall of the warrants.

The Court directed that the arrest warrants dated February 2, 2026, and February 24, 2026, shall remain stayed for a period of three weeks to facilitate this appearance.

The Magistrate was directed to consider the Petitioner’s application in accordance with the law, noting that arrest is not strictly required in such complaint cases.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.