feat(young-persons): age at engagement, the section 3A Schedule bar, and section 7 hours the adult engine cannot express (#1877)

[MOHITKOURAV01]

Description

This PR implements the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 — the age at engagement, the section 3A Schedule bar, and the section 7 hours that workingHoursCompliance.js cannot express.

• Engine (utils/adolescentEmployment.js): age classification as a function of a date, the two prohibitions kept separate, the section 7 spell/interval/day/night/overtime/weekly-day-off limits, overtimeTreatment as an explicit precedence rule, and assertNoAmounts as a guard.
• Models (adolescentEmployment.model.js): AgeRecord (date of birth and what it rests on), YoungPersonRegister (the section 11 register), EmploymentFinding (no amount field), EmploymentAssessment (counts, with the Schedule snapshotted).
• Controller & routes: /api/young-persons/rules, /age-records, /register, /register/:id/days, /assessment, /findings, /assessments.
• Page (YoungPersonsRegister.jsx): prohibited engagements as a blocking banner, then the register, then the section 7 limits in force. No currency anywhere on it.
• Tests: 56 unit tests.

The design point: there is no money in this feature

An underage engagement has no compensable amount. Section 14's punishment is imprisonment and a fine on conviction — a criminal penalty, not a liability that accrues. A rupee figure here would be summed into a compliance provision by the first report that read it, and the resulting line would state, in a number, that employing a child costs a known amount.

So:

• every finding is an occurrence, a person, a date and a section;
• assertNoAmounts walks any result for a money-shaped key and is exported for the suite;
• GET /assessment runs it on the way out and returns 500 rather than a payload with a price in it;
• EmploymentFinding has no amount, cost, penalty or exposure field, and EmploymentAssessment carries counts of people;
• the page has no currency formatter imported.

Two prohibitions, not one

A child is anybody below fourteen and section 3's bar is total — any occupation or process, with only the family-enterprise and audio-visual-artist provisos. Both are claims about a relationship and about schooling rather than job titles, so an unevidenced claim is a finding and the register refuses (422) to record one. The family exception does not reach a hazardous occupation.

An adolescent is fourteen to under eighteen and section 3A's bar is by Schedule — mines, inflammable substances, explosives, and the hazardous processes incorporated by reference from section 2(cb) of the Factories Act. Outside the Schedule the engagement is permitted, under section 7.

Collapsing the two into one "underage" test would either bar lawful adolescent work or permit a child.

Classification is a date, and it moves

Somebody engaged lawfully as an adolescent turns eighteen during their employment and the section 7 limits fall away on that day. So classification is computed by classifyOn(date) and never persisted — assessPerson recomputes it per worked day, and a roster straddling the birthday is measured against these limits before it and against the adult engine's after. completedYears uses calendar arithmetic rather than days ÷ 365.25, because a leap-day birthday is exactly the case where a day is the whole question.

The six-hour day is inclusive

Section 7(2) caps the day including the interval and any waiting time. Six hours of work plus the one-hour interval the Act requires is a seven-hour day and is over the limit. So assessDay measures from first start to last end rather than summing the spells, and adds recorded waiting time.

Overtime is not a rate

workingHoursCompliance.js answers an excess hour by computing the section 59 double rate. Section 7(4) prohibits overtime for a young person outright. overtimeTreatment states that precedence in code and is carried on every person in the payload, so a caller cannot reach the wrong engine by default. It returns a sentence, never a figure.

---

Related Issue

• Closes[FEATURE] Child and Adolescent Labour Act 1986: age at engagement, the Schedule bar, and section 7 hours the adult engine cannot express #1877

---

Component(s) Affected

• Backend (backend/)
• Web app (frontend/)
• Mobile app
• Docs only
• CI / tooling

---

Type of Change

• New feature
• Bug fix
• Refactor
• Other:

---

Testing Performed

• 56 unit tests on utils/adolescentEmployment.js, all passing.
• assertNoAmounts asserted to return [] over assessEstablishment, assessDay and overtimeTreatment results, and asserted to find a planted amount / penalty key so the guard itself is not vacuous.
• Result asserted not to carry estimatedPenalty, exposure or totalLiability.
• Classification asserted to change on the day (14 June vs 15 June for a 15 June birthday) and to handle a 29 February birthday without drifting.
• The same long day asserted to be a DAY_EXCEEDS_LIMIT breach the day before somebody turns eighteen and not a finding the day after.
• Six hours of work plus a one-hour interval asserted to be 420 minutes and over the ceiling.
• Night work asserted for a start before 08:00, an end after 19:00, and a shift running past midnight.
• Family-enterprise exception asserted to fail unevidenced, to fail where it interferes with schooling, and to fail in a Schedule occupation.
• Prohibited findings asserted to be kept out of the regulated list.
• permissions.routeCoverage passes for the new router (the unrelated failures in that suite are pre-existing on main).
• ESLint and Prettier clean on all new and changed files.

---

Checklist

• Rebased from latest main — zero merge conflicts
• Clean and simple code with JSDoc comments
• No secrets committed
• No monetary field in any model, response, audit line or page in this feature

---

Merge behaviour

This PR touches five shared wiring files — the permission vocabulary, the audit vocabulary, app.js, the route-mounting test, and the frontend navigation registry. Its blocks are placed at their own anchor in each of those files rather than beside the most recently added neighbour, so that this and the sibling PRs in the same batch do not collide on the same hunk.

Verified by merging all of them onto main in forward and shuffled order: no conflicts either way, node --check clean on the combined result, all five routers mounted, and permissions.routeCoverage gaining its new cases with no new failures.

[vercel]

@MOHITKOURAV01 is attempting to deploy a commit to the Dev's projects Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.