The Telangana High Court has specified that the act of hiring a child for longer hours and paying lower wages does not inherently qualify as an offense of "child kept in bondage" as outlined in Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Justice K. Sujana made the observation on a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), seeking to quash criminal proceedings against an individual accused under the said section. The court said “The essential ingredient to attract the offence under Section 79 of the Act is that the minor child must be kept in bondage for the purpose of employment or the child's earnings should be withheld or used by the employer for their own purposes. These allegations are not present in the complaint or the charge sheet.”

In the case, the petitioner was accused of employing a minor for longer hours than allowed and paying them less than the mandated minimum wage. The petitioner argued that crucial aspects of the offense, such as keeping the child in bondage for labor or withholding/utilizing their earnings, were not present in this particular situation.

After careful examination, the court observed that the evidence and chargesheet were deficient in specific details. While the complaint suggested that the child worked longer hours for inadequate pay, it failed to specify the precise number of hours worked or the wages received. Additionally, there was no indication that the child was subjected to bondage or that their earnings were withheld or misappropriated by the employer. The court highlighted that the complaint did not provide clarity on "how many hours the victim worked and what salary was paid by the petitioner."

"This Court has reviewed the material available on record and found that the alleged offence is under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The allegation against the petitioner is that, despite employing a minor aged about 17 years for more than the prescribed working hours, he paid less salary. However, the complaint does not specify the number of hours worked or the salary paid," the court further observed.

The court emphasized that without demonstrating that the child was subjected to bondage for labor or that their earnings were withheld or misused, simply employing a child for longer hours and lower wages does not qualify as an offense under Section 79.