Please refer to our new main site.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Resource Constraint or Political Will: Child Labour in Developing Countries: The Indian Case

Resource Constraint or Political Will: Child Labour in Developing Countries: The Indian Case *

Background: Child Labour is an important human rights issue. It is an internationally recognized problem and despite steps being taken to combat it, children continue to serve as child labourers. Various factors contribute to the rise in the ratio of child labourers especially in developing or less developed nations. The main factors include inadequate implementation of political will of states to enforce labour laws abolishing child labour and the social implications there in; availability of cheap child labour in developing countries wherein due to resource (financial) constraints, children are sent for work to support their families and poverty is intrinsically associated with the above mentioned two factors which forces the child to go and work instead of going to school. Thus the problem of child labour has to be solved by keeping the above factors in mind. There have been efforts to combat child labour but the results are not conclusive especially in developing countries. There are provisions under international conventions pertaining to child labour and these have been ratified by developing countries, India being one of them. The paper concentrates on providing a basic view of the provisions laid down in international law as well as domestic laws of India to combat child labour and the effect so far. It also illustrates the problem of poverty as linked with the two factors in depth.

Introduction: The main purpose of human rights is to protect the dignity of every human being and also to provide protection from exploitation and harmful practices. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognizes the inherent dignity of and the equal and inalienable rights of humans as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the World[1]. Since 1948, when the UDHR was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, several human rights instruments dealing with almost every aspect of human rights have been enacted and various bodies formed to ensure compliance with the established standards. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT, 1984), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979) and several other instruments dealing with other aspects of human rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is in fact the most widely ratified covenant in international human rights.

Child labour can be defined as the employment of children under the age of 18 years, it is considered by many people as the exploitation of children, and it is also considered to violate universal schooling and children rights[2]. Children perform duties in factories, agriculture, domestic work, tourist guides, businesses and restaurants as waiters, extreme forms of child labour include child soldiers, trafficking and child prostitution[3].

According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) in a 1998 Report, there are about 250 million children in the world, under the age of 14, working full time to earn a daily wage ("Eliminating Child Labor", 2001). Moreover, there are about 150 to 200 million children, who work to provide for their families[4]. In most of the countries where child labor is widespread, 80% of working children work 7 days a week. In Asian countries, 90 million children work. In South Asian countries, there are an increasing number of young girls taken to prostitution[5]. Also, the study found that boys aged between 6 and 10 are shipped to the Middle East to do intensive work[6].

The difference between the situation of child labour in countries is that in developing countries children work in order to earn money to support their families, however in developed countries children work in order to be financially independent from their parents. In developing countries the major push factor for child labour is poverty, this may occur where adults who are parents and labourers do not earn enough to support their families and as a result they end up sending their children to work. What makes child labour issues more complex is that some aspects of this labour continue to remain outside the reach of the law, such as domestic labour.

Though globalization has contributed to the growth of economy in India, however this has led to expansion of labourers along with violation of their rights. Child labour is at hike as implementation of labour laws and policies is not adequate in India.The following chapters provide an insight on laws legislated to combat this problem.


The problem of child labour and others relating to child right violations attained importance in the international regime and the need for international as well as national intervention for solving these problems was realized. Thus it is important to observe the development of legal regime on child rights and the response of nations world wide.

Under UN Convention: The UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (1989) received universal acceptance with 190 state ratifications in less than ten years. Although the question of child labor was dealt with in only a few of the convention's provisions, the massive political support for CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, as such, also enhanced the commitment to working children. In international law, labor issues have been reserved for the International Labour Organization (ILO)[7]. In the traditional perspective of the ILO, child labor must be eradicated from the labor market. Hence, from its establishment, the ILO strategy to combat child labor was to secure international agreements on a minimum working age for children. During the 1920s and 1930s a series of international treaties covering different sectors urged states to set a minimum working age[8]. In 1973 these instruments combined into the Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment.

Children were not dealt with specifically until the UN's Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery (1956), which included children "delivered to another person with a view to the exploitation of the child" in a list of slavery-like practices (Article 1). Ten years later children were mentioned in one of the fundamental UN human rights treaties, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), which obliges state parties to criminalize employment of children under conditions "harmful to their morals or health" (Article 10). The perspective of the human rights treaties of the UN differed from that of the ILO[9]. The former addressed the well-being and development of the child, and thus adopted the protective approach that had long prevailed in philanthropy and welfare legislation throughout the industrialized world[10].

With the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 a child-centered approach became popular. In line with the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it demands protection of the child against economic and social exploitation (Article 32). Furthermore, the 1989 convention included new aspects of protection against sexual and other forms of exploitation (Articles 34 and 36) and against recruiting children to any form of war activities (Article 38)[11].

Under ILO: The tremendous support for the children's rights convention influenced the approach to child labor. In the ILO the traditional trade union perspective was gradually revised to correspond more closely with the protective orientation. In 1999 the ILO adopted for the first time a purely child-oriented treaty: the Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour. The new strategy and instrument proved to be the greatest success in the history of the organization, with more than 130 states ratifying the treaty in three and a half years[12].

Some of the first ILO conventions, often referred to as the minimum age conventions, illustrate the significant early international steps taken toward addressing child labor and its potential hazards. While the initial international labor laws surrounding child labor targeted the age of the child and the sector of industry involved, they did not explicitly articulate that one industry was necessarily more hazardous or dangerous than another[13]. The ILO did, however, implicitly assert through its direct attention to age and industry categories that children's development played a crucial role in their ability to perform or be exposed to certain tasks. Children younger than a designated age, and acting within a proscribed industry, exposed themselves to hazards if not properly regulated by such criteria. ILO Convention No. 5, which came into force on June 13, 1921, stated, "Children under the age of fourteen shall not be employed or work in any public or private undertaking ." Convention No. 6 prohibited children younger than the age of 18 from working during the night unless the "nature of the process [was] required to be carried on continuously day and night." And Conventions No. 7, 10, 15, 33, and 59 specifically attempted to establish the minimum age for children working in the fishing and agricultural industries as trimmers and stokers and as non-industrial workers[14].

The next major development in child labor legislation did not occur until 1973 with the introduction of ILO Convention No. 138[15]. This convention was intended to serve as the most comprehensive child labor convention to date, as it superceded its industry-specific predecessors. Convention No. 138 attempted to unambiguously state what was implied in the previously enacted minimum age conventions. The age of the child worker was to correspond to a "level consistent with the fullest physical and mental development" of the young person and the minimum age of employment was to be no younger than 15 years of age.

Hazardous employment became work that was "likely to jeopardize the health, safety or morals of young persons." State parties were charged with identifying which types of employment fell within this definition. Hazardous work could not be performed by those younger than 18 years of age. Exceptions to the minimum age requirement could be obtained if state parties found such exclusions "necessary." In which case, states were permitted to lower the minimum age to 16 "on condition that the health, safety and morals of the young person concerned [were] fully protected and that the young persons [had] received adequate specific instruction or vocational training in the relevant branch of activity[16]." Again, minimum age requirements were relaxed to 14 years of age for those Member States that proved economic hardship.

Additionally, ILO Convention No. 138 is significant in that it introduced a bold new strategy to combat child labor: complete abolition. Convention No. 138, therefore, becomes a paradoxical instrument in that the types of "labor" or "work" to be abolished are never defined. Any work, however benign, undertaken by a child could become prohibited work[17]. However, Article 7, Section 1(a) of Convention No. 138 complicates matters by permitting national laws or regulations to allow "light work which is not likely to be harmful to [the] health or development" of the children involved. Children from 13�15 years of age fall within this category of permissive work. Because "work" is never defined, it is impossible to ascertain which types of work are deemed acceptable or inherently unhealthy[18].

The convention and recommendation on the Worst Forms of Child Labor, Convention No. 182 and Recommendation No. 190, are the most contemporary examples of what defines hazardous and dangerous working conditions for child laborers. Adopted on June 17, 1999, this convention sought to prioritize the most extreme and egregious forms of child labor exploitation and to "complement existing instruments." Under this convention, also known as the Child Labor Treaty, ratifying nations must take effective and immediate action to prohibit and eliminate the worst forms of child labor, and such action shall take priority over other forms of child labor regulation. Measures relating to girls were included to recognize the "special situations" of this population[19]. Moreover, nations were directed to implement a monitoring system and take all necessary steps to ensure that an effective enforcement system is in place. Rehabilitation and social integration programs also were to be establish ed while the needs of at-risk children were identified and addressed[20].

The 87th Committee on Child Labor, the final major entity involved in the formation of this treaty, grappled with the language of the instrument. In particular, they struggled with the forms of labor that were to encompass the "worst forms" and "hazardous" categories of child labor. Opinions differed dramatically from one country to another on what should or should not constitute hazardous child labor conditions[21]. A broader, more detailed definition of hazardous child labor emerges through Recommendation 190, a non-binding supplement to Convention No. 182. Drawing from previously adopted ILO conventions pertaining to adult environmental working conditions, Recommendation 190 borrows similar standards as particularly specified in Convention No. 120, adopted in 1964, outlining "hygienic" working environments. Children, through the inclusion of these measures, are allowed some degree of comparable protection as that afforded to adults. It does not, however, provide for the unique and varying needs of child laborers in contrast with their adult counterparts. Nor does it provide concrete provisional standards in that a ratifying nation is asked merely to "consider" this criteria when defining hazardous child labor conditions[22].

Combating Child Labour

Among the major international agents in the field, in particular the ILO, UNICEF, and the World Bank, a consensus has been reached to focus efforts to curb the worst forms of child labor[23]. All three organizations assist governments in developing policies and strategies, and they also support implementation programs.

Though only a very small share of working children is involved in export businesses, trade mechanisms including sanctions are prominent in the public debates on the issue. In the World Trade Organization (WTO), however, binding statutes against trade involving child labor are being strongly opposed, particularly by developing countries that see protectionism as the underlying motive[24]. There is a broad consensus that trade sanctions are a double-edged instrument that may have adverse effects on children. Collaborative initiatives between the human rights and business sectors are on the other hand a fast-expanding field. In 2000 the UN launched a program, Global Compact, to work directly with companies, with "effective abolition of child labour" as one of the nine goals[25].

Regionally, under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) there is a mechanism to monitor labor rights within member countries. The United States has a long tradition of unilaterally applying certain labor standards, encompassing prohibition of child labor, to trade agreements[26]. In the early 2000s, both the United States and the European Union (EU) have a so-called General System of Preferences granting trade benefits to countries that live up to certain labor standards. While the U.S. system focuses solely on import goods, the EU system, installed in 1998, also focuses on applicant state policy to abolish child labor more broadly[27].Other measures to combat child labor have been developed by individual companies as well as business sectors, often in cooperation with nongovernmental organizations. These initiatives include the promotion of investment and trade principles, demands on suppliers in developing countries, and the labeling of products.


The Constitution of India in Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy states that:

"the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing ... that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused, and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength, that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner, and in conditions of freedom and dignity, and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation, and against moral and material abandonment."

As a follow-up of this commitment, and being a party to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child 1959, India adopted the National Policy on Children in 1974. The policy reaffirmed the constitutional provisions and stated that:

"It shall be the policy of the State to provide adequate services to children, both before and after birth and through the period of growth to ensure their full physical, mental and social development. The State shall progressively increase the scope of such services so that within a reasonable time all children in the country enjoy optimum conditions for their balanced growth."

India has also ratified on December 2, 1992, the Convention on the Rights of the Child which came into force in 1990. This ratification implies that India will ensure wide awareness about issues relating to children among government agencies, implementing agencies, the media, the judiciary, the public and children themselves[28]. India is also a signatory to the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children. In pursuance of the commitment made at the World Summit, the Department of Women and Child Development under the Ministry of Human Resource Development has formulated a National Plan of Action for Children. Most of the recommendations of the World Summit Action Plan are reflected in India's National Plan of Action[29].

India's policy on child labor has evolved over the years against this backdrop and its present regime of laws relating to child labor has a pragmatic foundation, consistent with the International Labor Conference resolution of 1979. This ILO resolution calls for a combination of prohibitory measures and measures for humanizing child labor, wherever such labor cannot be eliminated altogether in the short turn[30]. It should also be mentioned that India is second to none in its commitment to and in the upholding of the core international labor standards such as freedom of association, collective bargaining, nondiscrimination, etc. India is signatory to a record of 36 ILO labor conventions.

The Child Labor (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 of India prohibits the employment of children below the age of 14 in factories, mines and in other forms of hazardous employment, and regulates the working conditions of children in other employment. India has announced a National Policy of Child Labor as early as 1987, and was probably the first among the developing countries to have such a progressive policy[31]. Through a notification dated May 26, 1993, the working conditions of children have been regulated in all employment not prohibited under the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. Further, following up on a preliminary notification issued on October 5, 1993, the government has also prohibited employment of children in occupations such as abattoirs/slaughter houses, printing, cashew de-scaling and processing, and soldering. With the setting up of the National Authority for the Elimination of Child Labor (NAECL) under the Chairmanship of the Labor Min ister, Government of India, a convergence of services and schemes for eliminating child labor is being achieved[32].

The child labor program in India is national in character and involves the Government of India, the governments of the States and the Union Territories of India, as well as such tripartite for as the Indian Labour Conference and the Standing Labour Committee. A massive national and regional media campaign has been launched to sensitize society against child labor[33]. Funds have been allocated to districts identified as child-labor endemic for surveys to identify child labor, and for awareness generation programs among employers, parents and the working children themselves.

India's first Act on the subject was the enactment of the Children (Pledging of Labor) Act of February 1933. This was followed by the Employment of Children Act in 1938. Subsequently, twelve additional legislations were passed that progressively extended legal protection to children. Provisions relating to child labor under various enactment such as the Factories Act, the Mines Act, the Plantation Labor Act etc. have concentrated on aspects such as reducing working hours, increasing minimum wage and prohibiting employment of children in occupations and processes detrimental to their health and development[34].

The Child Labor (Prohibition & Regulation) Act 1986 of India was the culmination of efforts and ideas that emerged from the deliberations and recommendations of various committees on child labor. Significant among them are the National Commission on Labour (1966-69), Gurupadaswamy Committee on Child Labour (1979), and the Sanat Mehta Committee (1984)[35].The Act aims to prohibit the entry of children into hazardous occupations and to regulate the services of children in non-hazardous occupations[36]. The Act -

Bans the employment of children, i.e. those who have not completed their 14thyear, in specified occupations and processes. Lays down a procedure to make additions to the schedule of banned occupations or processes; Regulates the working conditions of children in occupations where they are not prohibited from working; Lays down penalties for employment of children in violation of the provisions of this Act and other Acts which forbid the employment of children; Brings uniformity in the definition of the "Child" in related laws.


Soon after the enactment of the comprehensive Child Labor (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986, the Government of India adopted a National Child Labor policy in 1987, in accordance with the constitutional provisions and various legislations on child labor. The idea of adopting a separate policy on child labor was not only to place the issue on the nation's agenda, but also to formulate a specific program of action to initiate the process of progressive elimination of child labor[37]. The policy consists of three complementary measures:

Legal action plan: This policy envisages strict enforcement of the provisions of the Child Labor (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 and other child-related legislation. Focus on general development programs benefiting children wherever possible: The policy envisages the development of an extensive system of non-formal education for working children withdrawn from work and increasing the provision for employment and income generating schemes meant for their parents. A special cell - Child Labor Cell - was constituted to encourage voluntary organizations to take up activities like non-formal education,- vocational training, provisions of health care, nutrition and education for working children. Area specific projects: To focus on areas known to have high concentration of child labor and to adopt a project approach for identification, withdrawal and rehabilitation of working children.


A PIL was filed before the Supreme Court in which it was again pointed out that in violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 24, children were being employed in several hazardous industries. A particular reference was made to the firework industries in Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu. Using the wide scope of powers provided to it, the Supreme Court created a special committee consisting of various advocates and a report was submitted by this committee.

Following the committee report, the Supreme Court submitted a landmark judgment on 10th December, 1996 in Writ Petition (Civil) Number 465/1996M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu[38], has given certain directions regarding the manner in which children working in the hazardous occupations are to be withdrawn from work and rehabilitated, and the manner in which the working conditions of children working in non-hazardous occupations are to be regulated and improved. The judgement envisages that[39]:

Simultaneous action be taken for child welfare in all districts of the country; Survey for identification of working children (to be completed by June 10, 1997) Withdrawal of children working in hazardous industries and ensuring their education in appropriate institutions; Contribution of Rs.20,000 per child to be paid by the offending employers of children to a welfare fund to be established for this purpose; Employment to one adult member of the family of the child so withdrawn from work, and if that is not possible a contribution of Rs.5000 to the welfare fund to be made by the State Government; Financial assistance to the families of the children so withdrawn to be paid out of the interest earnings on the corpus of Rs.20,000/25,000.00 deposited in the welfare fund as long as the child is actually sent to the schools; Regulating hours of work for children working in non-hazardous occupations so that their working hours do not exceed six hours per day and education for at least two hours is ensured. The entire expenditure on education is to be borne by the concerned employer; Planning and preparedness on the part of Central and State Governments in terms of strengthening of the existing administrative/regulatory/enforcement framework (covering cost of additional manpower, training, mobility, computerization etc.) implying additional requirement of funds.

As a follow up of the directions of the Supreme Court, all the State Governments were sent detailed guidelines on December 26, 1996 indicating the manner in which the directions of the Supreme Court were to be implemented. All the States pleaded for additional and liberal financial assistance from the Central Government for implementing the judgement of the Supreme Court[40].


The debate on contributing factors to child labour has attained much importance especially in developing countries like India. The issue is whether inadequate or non enforcement of legal enactments and policies contribute towards the rising the no. of child labourers and also negate other measures aimed to combat child labour. If so, then government needs to look into the matter and lead the path to effective enforcement. But then the question rises as to the inefficiency in doing the needful which indicates towards other relevant factors, one of which is poverty i.e. economic restraints that force children to work and support their families below poverty line and not seek education which is also a part of government plan. This is a larger issue than implementation of policies restricting child labour. It is mostly prevalent in developing nations. Even in India, despite all efforts made by the three organs, the no. is still quite consistent. Along with contributing factors , it is also important to analyze the consequences of child labour. Thus the following discussion throws light upon the factors and consequences of child labour.

While child labor is a complex problem that is basically rooted in poverty and is thus a characteristic of developing and underdeveloped nations throughout the world. The solution lies only in the economic strengthening of India as a nation to such an extent that it passes down to grass root level. Only then will policies such as compulsory education for all and other social legislations really serve their purpose completely. India has already ratified six ILO conventions with relation to curbing child labour and ancillary issues[41]. But the real solution still lies in the social an economic strengthening of the child and his family. The strategy of progressive elimination of child labor underscores India's legislative intent, and takes cognizance of the fact that child labor is not an isolated phenomenon that can be tackled without simultaneously taking into account the socio-economic milieu that is at the root of the problem.

"Poverty has an obvious relationship with child labour, and studies have "revealed a positive correlation - in some instances a strong one - between child labour and such factors as poverty" (Mehra-Kerpelman 1996, 8).[42]"

Child labour is increasing day by day only because of a family's financial situation. A child cannot access the school because of poverty. In order to make the family survive, as a member in the family, a child is forced to work. To avoid this government has made several schemes including midday meal scheme. But the school drop outs are large in number because education has no role in their life except surviving. Since poor are becoming poorer and rich to richer, children have no other go, except to work[43]. Human Rights Watch estimates that about 15 million children work under these conditions. Children are forced to work to help pay for their families' debt, and have absolutely no say in voicing whether they agree to working under the presented circumstances. They are sold like objects, and are submitted to working under terrible conditions. Bonded labor is clearly an abuse of their basic rights as humans[44]. Bonded labor is also becoming a major problem in India. Fami lies who cannot pay their debt sell or trade their children to their debtors in exchange for the money they owe. Money owed to rural banks, the government, or local creditors is usually managed by the local moneylender who takes labor in exchange. Reports estimate that 89% of those who control such bonded labourers are agricultural landlords. Since the earnings of bonded child labourers are less than the interest on the loans, these bonded children are forced to work, while interest on their loans accumulates[45].

A bonded child can only be released after his /her parent makes a lump sum payment, which is extremely difficult for the poor[46]. Even if bonded child labourers are released, the same conditions of poverty that caused the initial debt can cause people to slip back into bondage. Poverty itself has underlying determinants, one such determinant being caste. It is stated that most of bonded labourers, both children and adult belong to the Schedule castes or Schedule Tribes.

The consequences of child labour are faced by children themselves in forms of injury, health risks, loss of education, slavery, inhumane work environments and longing hours with high possibility of human rights vilolations.

The Beedi cigarette industry is an important example of a growing export commodity that employs child labor. The carpet industry is also notorious for employing children. Reports suggest that 80% of all child labourers are bonded labourers[47]. An estimated 14% of children in India aged 5-14 are engaged in child labor activities, including carpet production. With enough children put to work, more carpets can be made in a shorter period. Some reports state that majority of the children working in the looms and factories are actually stolen and kidnapped from their families[48]. These children, as young as 4 years of age, are forced to hand-weave carpets, under inhumane conditions. They are barely fed, work on only few hours of sleep, and sometimes have their hands burned with irons so that they do not bleed on the carpets. An estimated 500,000 children are believed to be working in the hand weaving carpet industry in South Asia today[49].

Children also suffer from of cuts and other injuries from threads and machines; headaches; pain in the back, legs, neck, and abdomen; colds and bronchitis; hearing loss; and vision problems. The noise from the twisting factories was deafening, and employers often play loud music in the mistaken belief that it will prevent hearing loss from the machines.

In addition to injuries related to the work itself, children have also been subject to being beaten and verbally abused by their employers.

Thus all these instances illustrate the adverse effects of child labour on children themselves. It becomes a concern at this stage to frame better policies while taking into account the social and economic conditions of the country. One of the possible solution can be more emphasis on employment laws on adult labour so that the pressure is relaxed to an extent and adequate needs of a family below poverty line are met. This would lead to progressive development of children as they would not be compelled to own up to their responsibilities of supporting families at such tender age. Thus in this way, children will focus on their education and enjoy childhood.


The debate on factors contributing to child labour and adverse affect thereafter has been discussed in a number of conferences and various initiatives have been adopted by nations to combat the problem from the root. However there is a ratio variation between the developed and developing countries with respect to child labour. This difference can be attributed to the economic development of the countries especially the existence of poverty which does not allow any progress in any area. Thus this leads to ineffective implementation of policies framed for the development of children.

The factors are interlinked i.e. even if political will to curb the issue by way of enactments is to be enforced, poverty as a primary factor will ensure that such measures are ineffective there by causing constraints over families and inducing them to send children for child labour to reduce the burden. Thus there is a need for change and policies should be framed by taking into consideration the economic restraints. As suggested before, it is the duty of the government to create circumstances wherein the families below poverty line do not engage their children in child labour and ruin their future. With respect to this, even at international level there is a need to bring in stringent measures compelling developing nations to fulfill their duties with respect to the welfare of child.

* Neha Meena, B.A. LL.B. Hons, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad









[9]Supra n. 7.

[10]Supra n. 7.












[23]Supra n. 7.

[24]Supra n. 7.

[25]Supra n. 7.


[27]Supra n. 7.

[28]Embassy of India, Washington DC, Report on Child Labor in India.




[32]Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Initiative towards Elimination of Child Labour � Action Plan and Present Strategy.



[35]Embassy of India, Washington DC, Report on Child Labor in India, available at /policy/Child_Labor/childlabor.htm

[37]Child Labour, available at /cwl/ChildLabour.htm

[38]1996 (9) SCALE 42.


[40]Sarkar, Child Labour in India- An Introspection, available at /publicdata/articles/article216.pdf


[42]Dr. Mitesh V. Badiwala, M.D, Child Labour in India: Causes, Governmental Policies and the role of Education, available at /CollegePark/Library/9175/inquiry1.htm

[43]Chlid Labour, June12th 2008, available at /article-marketing-articles/child-labour-447182.html

[44]ILO Periodical Publication, Bonded Labour Trends in India, 2008, available at http:///ipec/ChildlabourstatisticsSIMPOC/lang--en/index.htm

[45]Clarence James Coonghe, Introduction to Child Labour in India and Hazards faced by the Labourers, available at


[46]Dr. Mitesh V. Badiwala, M.D, Child Labour in India: Causes, Governmental Policies and the role of Education, available at /CollegePark/Library/9175/inquiry1.htm




No comments:

Post a Comment