The children who is below the age of 18 years is against the fundamentals of the general contract act. If a child is employed in a shop or other place then there is a contract. If a child is not able to enter into contract until he/she is not attained the age of majority, 18 years according to the Section 11 of Indian Contract act 1872.

Every person who is competent to contract and who attained the age of majority, according to the law and who is of sound mind and the person who is not disqualified by any of the law.

Minor’s agreement –
Section 3 of the Indian Majority act 1875 a minor is a person who has not been attained the age of 18 years. A person whose property a guardian has been appointed by the court and they attain the age of majority at the age of 21 years.

Section 11 tells that a minor is not competent to a contract.
Case – Mohori bibee’s vs Dhurmodas Ghose-
In this case Dharmodas ghose executed a mortgage of his house in the favours of the Brahmo Dutta to secure the repayement of Rs 20,000 advanced on 12% interest. Brahmo Dutta was carried a business of money which are lending at Calcutta. During there transaction he was absent. The transaction was carried on him through his attorney. Kedarnath Mittar and the money was advanced by the local manager Debraj . Dharmodas was a minor. He was also not attained the age of 21 years. And his mother Jogendra Nandini Dasi was his guardian and he was appointed by the court. When his mother was came to know about his dealings on between Brahmo dutt and the Dharmodas Ghose she was informed a letter to a Kedar Nath Mittar Though aher attorney Bhupendra Nath Gose that the Dharmodas Ghose was a minor and she was his mother and the guardian of a person and the property of the Dharmodas ghose was appointed by the High court . She was also informed that the if any one lending money to Dharmodas Ghose would do at his own risk. The letter was written on 20th July 1895. on this day the mortgage was executed to the kedarnath and it was got a declaration signed by the Dharmodas Ghose that he had come of age of majority on 17th June and Kedar nath and Debraj was relied on that statement which was advanced him money. The kedar nath was also a knowledge about dharmodas ghose was a minor.

on September 1895 Dharmodas Ghose came with his mother as a guardian and next friend who was against Brahmodutta that the Dharmodas Ghose was a minor when he was mortgage and the declaration was also void , inoperative. The defence of Brahmodutta that neither he nor the kedar nath has been a knowledged about that the Dharmodas was a minor when the money was been advanced to him. If he was a minor his declaration was a fraudulent to deceive the defendant and the plantiff was not able to get the relief . In this case the court was not grant a relief to the plantiff unless he repaid the money advanced to him. The appeal was preffered to the privy council. If the Brahmo Dutt was died then the appeal was prosecuted to the executors.

Sec 11 - Competent To Contract
Every person is competent to a contract who is the age of majority and who is of sound mind and the person who is not disqualified by the law.
The following persons are not competent to a contract –
a) Minors
b) Persons of unsound mind
c) Persons Disqualified by the law
The effects of an agreement entered into by a minor –
a) There can be no estoppel against a minor
b) There is no liability arising out of contract or in a tort arising out of contract.
c) The doctrine of restitution.

Doctrine of Restitution-
The minor has been forced to restore the property of goods which he gets misrepresenting his age that it is traceable in the possession of the minor. If it is not traced or it has been sold or converted to his own use by the minor and he was not be held liable to repay the value of it because it would amount to the enforcement of an void agreement.

Case – Leslie Ltd vs. Sheil
An minor was fraudulently represented that he was a major and they tell him the plantiff to lend $ 200 each. The action to recover the money was failed. The court of the appeal was held that the cause of action was ex contract and the defendant was under no equitable liability to the plantiff. The plea of infancy was a good answer. The plantiffs was relied upon the doctrine of restitution that the infant was bound by the equity to restore the ill-gotten gains. It was held that a minor was not able to force to restore $400 as the contact was void and the doctrine of restitution was not applicable.

The doctrine of restitution was not apply where the money was given with the knowledge of infancy in this case justice was not required that the money should not be returned.

The Minor Is Not Liable For Tort Arising Out of Contract
Johnson vs. Pye – A minor can not be sued in a tort for deceit when a minor was obtained a load by misrepresenting his age as well as all the infants were ruined . A contract with minor cannot be converted into a tort by suing a minor. The view of the indian court was also the same. The tort is not directly connected with the contract but it is independent. The minor is liable for the damages in tort. A minor borrowed a mere for riding and a minor was given a mere to his friend who jumped and killed her and was held liable by the house of lords, a minor was held liable in a tort when he could not retain certain ornaments because he had given the ornaments to his friend.

 

The Estoppel Not To Apply Against A Minor–

The principle of estoppel cannot be applied to a minor to prevent him from raising the plea of minor to permit the estoppel against a minor who has obtained a benefit under the agreement by misrepresenting his age, the application of doctrine of estoppel was against the statute. The rule of estoppel does not apply against a minor.
 

Sec 68 – Claim For Necessaries Supplied To Person Incapable of Contracting Or on His Account-

If a person is not capable of entering into a contract or anyone who is legally bound to support and it is supplied by the another person with necessaries suitable in the condition of life. The person who is furnished such supplies is entitiled to reimburse from the property of an incapable persons.
Ex- A) A supplies B, a lunatic with necessaries suitable to his conditions in the life. A is entitled to reimburse from B’s property.
B) A supplies the wife and the children of B, Lunatic with necessaries suitable to their conditions in life. A is entitled to the reimbursed from B’s property.

Necessaries-
Necessaries are those which are essential to a human being and without which a human beings cannot be live. But it is change with the social advancement of the human beings. The food, shelter and the clothes are the basic needs of all the human beings. The necessaries of the human beings are not limited to only three things. Education, Health and the refreshment are also necessary for the human beings. A thing may also be necessity to a human beings but another thing of comfort or luxury. Necessaries has been defined by many writers are- Many things are necessary without which no individual can be reasonably exist. In the first food, rainment and lodging are necessary for the life. The proper cultivation of the mind as the support of the body, instruction in trade or art or intellectual, moral and the religious information is necessary. A man lives in a society the assistance and the attendance of others is necessary for the wellbeing. Clothes may be fine or according to the rank. His education was according to their status and the medicine was depend on the illness with which he is inflicted. Articles of mere luxury was always excluded through various articles of utility in all the cases.

In the English law, The minor is liable to pay for the necessaries supplied to him. Necessaries are those which are fit to support life of a person, The term necessaries include articles and services fit to maintain him in the station of life.

The necessaries for the members of the family of a minor in the English law have the same legal consequences as necessaries to him, The infant is liable on a contract for burial to his wife and their children.
The infant is liable for the necessaries it must be established that the goods are not only suitable to the infant’s station in life but it was also necessaries in the real requirement. If the minor is supplied with a necessaries when he has a sufficient quantity of it with him, this fact is not known to the supplier, the price cannot be recovered from the infant.

Nash vs. Inman –
The tailor was recovered the price of the clothes including eleven fancy waistcoats to an infant undergraduate at Cambridge was failed because he had an sample supply of clothes suitable to the station of his life.
The actual requirement of the infant have assessed at the time of delivery of goods. It must be decided by the suitable of the person’s station in the life. When the infant possesses an income of $500 per annum, a jeweled solitaires worth $25 and an antique worth 15 guineas cannot be necessaries.

The proof of that things was supplied to the person who supplied the things to the infant because they are suitable to the station of the life of the infant.

Petters vs. Fleming-
It was held that prima face it was not an unreasonable to the undergraduate infant to have a watch and the watch chain but the gold chain being prima facie was not reasonable was left to be decided by the jury as to it is suitable to the station of life of infant.

Basis of Liability-
The liability of an infant for the necessaries is not a clear. According to the theory the basis of the liability of the infant has been described by the ex contractu i.e a contract by a person in a full capacity. According to the other theory, the basis of liability re not consensus i.e the liability is not contractual but quasi contractual. The theory appear to be the correct the infant is not liable for the executory contract but liable only when necessaries have been supplied to him.
 

Child Labour Act, 1986

Child labour has been a still problem in india. Many efforts were made to solve the conditions of child labour in order to avoid exploitation in areas were child labour could not be avoided. Child Labour Act 1986 has been replaced by the Employment of Children’s act 1938. This act main aimed to identify the child who are working in the hazardous process and industries. And the children should be working in the non-hazardous occupation.

The main objective of act are-
A) to bring the equality in the definition of child in the related laws
B) to ban the children in the employment in specific occupation and processes.
C) to rectify the scope of banned industries and processes
D) to regulate the conditions of work of children and they are prohibited from working.
E) to gave punishment for violators.

This act has been came for all classes of establishment throughout the territory of india.
Section (ii) of the act defines Child means a person who does not completed the age of 14 years. Section 23,24,25,26 act amended the minimum wages act 1948, the plantation labour act 1951, the merchant shipping act 1958, the motor transport workers act 1961 the word 14 years has been replaced by 15 years.
 

Prohibition of Employment of Children In Certain Occupations And Processes

Section 3 of the act, no child shall be employed or permitted to work in any occupation set forth in Part A of the schedule or in any workshop wherein any of the processes set forth in Part B of the schedule.
Part A of the schedule contain 18 occupations, while Part B contains a list of 65 processes.

The central government has been given power to amend the schedule section 4 of the act. The central government giving notification in the official gazette with not less than three months notice of his intention.
Part A are those connected with-
a) transport of passengers, goods or mail by a railways.
b) cinder picking, clearing of an ash pit or building operation in the railway premises.
c) work in the catering establishment at a railway station, involving movement from one platform to another platform, or into or out of a moving train.
d) Work relating to construction of railways station in close proximity to railway lines.
e) a port authority within the limits of any port.

Part B are-
a) Beedi making
b) Carpet weaving
c) Cement manufacture
d) cloth printing, dyeing, and weaving
e) Manufactures of matches, explosives, and fireworks.
f) Mica cutting and splitting
g) Shellac manufacture
h) Soap manufacture
i) Tanning
j) Wool cleaning
k) Building and construction industry
Section 14 of the act provides punishment up to one year or with a fine upto Rs. 20000 or ith the both to one employs or permits any child to work in contravention of the provisions of Section 3.

The Amendment To The Child Labour Act 1986
This amendment prohibits the employment of children from the domestic workers or servants, and the employment of children in the dhabas, restaurant, hotels, motels, tea shops, resorts or other recreational centres. This amendment was came into force on 10 October 2006.

Exceptions-
Section 3 has provided exceptions-
A) workshop, any process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family.
B) any school established by or receiving assistance or recognition from the government.
 

Child Labour Technical Advisory Committee

Section 5 of the act tells that the constitution of an advisory committee to be called the child labour Technical advisory committee to advise the central government for the purpose of addition of occupation and processes.
In the constitution it was tell that it consists of an chairman and its other members but it may not exceeding 10 and it is to be appointed by the central government. The committee has the power to regulates its own procedure and meets as an necessary. It may also constitute one or more committees it feels necessary.

The central government had framed the Child Labour rules Act 1988 which are related to the Child labour technical advisory committee.

Regulations And Conditions of Work
Part III of the act was came into force from 26 may 1993, it regulates the conditions of work of children and it applies to an establishment or a class of an establishment which none of the occupations and processes which was referred in Section 3 are carried-
1) Hours and Periods of work/weekly holidays-
Section 7 of the act was laid down-
a) no children should be required to work in excess of hours which are prescribed for such establishment.
b) no period of work should be exceed three hours.
c) no child has been work for more than three hours unless he has an interval at least one hour.
d) inclusive of period of rest, periods of work shall not be spread over an six hours.
e) no child has been work from 7.00 pm to 8.00 am
f) no overtime for a child.
g) no child has been required or permitted to work in any establishment day on which he has been already working
h) every child shall been given a holiday of one whole day in a week. The day shall be specified in a notice exhibited in some place. The day shall not be altered more than once in a three months.

2) Notice to inspector regarding employment of children-
Section 9 says that every person who employs or permits any child to work within a period of 30 days from the date of such employment, send to inspector, within those local limits the establishment is situated.
a) name and situation of an establishment.
b) the name of the person in the actual management of an establishment.
c) the address to which communication relating to an establishment should be sent.
d) the nature of the occupation or process should be carried on in the establishment
If there is an dispute regarding the age of the child it will be prescribed by the medical authority.

3) Maintenance of registers-
Section 11 says the occupier of an establishment where a children are employed to maintain a registers-
a) name and the date of birth of every child who employed
b) hours and periods of work, intervals of rest of child.
c) nature of work of such a child.
d) other particulars may be prescribed.
It is made available to such an inspection to an inspectors at all times. Inspectors are to be appointed by the government. Section 17 are in compliance with this provisions.

4) Health and Safety provisions-
Government by special notification in the official gazette makes rules for the health and the safety of an children who are employed or permitted to work under Section 13 of the act. This rules may be provide for all-
a) Cleanliness
b) Disposal of wastes and effluents
c) Ventilation and temperature
d) dust and fumes
e) Artificial humidifications
f) lighting
g) drinking water
h) latrines and urinals
i) spittoons
j) fencing of machinery
k) work at or near machinery in motions
l) employement of children on dangerous machines
m) instruction, training
n) device for cutting off power
o) self- acting machines
p) easing of new machinery
q) floor, stairs, and means of accessa
r) pits, stumps, opening in floors etc
s) excessive weights
t) protections of eyes.
u) explosive or inflammable dust
v) precautions in case of fire
w) maintenance of building
x) safety of buildings and machinery
It shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs 10000 or with a simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or with a both.

Procedure Relating To offence
Section 16 of the act provides-
a) any person, police officer or inspector can also file a complaint about the commission for an offence.
b) every certificate of the age of the child has been granted by a medical authority for the purpose of the act.
c) No court inferior that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of a first class shall try any offence under this act.


Mc. Mehta vs. Union of India
The State Government fulfill the legislative intendment behind the enactment. The offending employers were directed to pay an compensation of Rs 20000 for the every child employed.

N. Bhageerathan
It was held that an accused or employer is an unable to prove that the children employed were not below 14 years, if he employed than he can be convicted for the offence of employing the child labour.