NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR CENTRAL LEGISLATION ON CONSTRUCTION LABOUR vs DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2130/2024
NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR CENTRAL LEGISLATION ON CONSTRUCTION LABOUR ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.Chirayu Jain, Advocate.
versus
DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD ….. Respondent Through: Mr.Abhay Dixit with Mr.Akhilesh Dixit, Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 22nd February, 2024
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
C.M.No.8861/2024
1.
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.2130/2024
3.
Present Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent/Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as Delhi BOCW Board) to revise its methodology/criteria used for categorising the workers registration status
under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) as current/live and lapsed/non-live on the ground that the current methodology/criteria used by the Respondent is violative of Section 17 of the Act, 1996.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Section 17 of the Act, 1996 provides for one year window from the date when renewal becomes due as per Section 16 of the Act, 1996 to renew registrations to the building workers. According to him, it is only after the default has continued for a period of one year, can the registration status of a building worker be deemed to be non-live/ceased/lapsed. He, however, points out that the Respondent as of now, deems the registration status as nonlive/ceased/lapsed even if there is a delay of one day in renewing the registrations. In support of his contention, he refers to various orders (attached as Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent rejecting the claims of construction workers for benefits on the ground that their registration status was non-live/ceased/lapsed.
5.
He submits that the interpretation adopted by the respondent is contrary to the judgments of this Court in Jai Pal v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board WP(C) 3001/2020; Rati Ram
v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board WP(C) 9769/2021; and Anguri Devi v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board 2023:DHC:4183.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a worker can be given benefits under the Act, 1996 only if he has worked as a construction worker for ninety days in a year. In support of his submission, he relies upon Section 14(1) of the Act, which reads as under:
14. Cessation as a beneficiary. (1) A building worker who has been registered as a beneficiary under this Act shall cease to be as such when he attains the age of sixty years or when he is not engaged in building or other construction work for not less than ninety days in a year: Provided that in computing the period of ninety days under this sub-section, there shall be excluded any period of absence from the building or other construction work due to any personal injury cause to the building worker by accident arising out of and in the course of his employement.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has handed over two charts
mentioning details of all offline and online claims from 2015 to 21st
February, 2024. The said two charts are reproduced hereinbelow:8. Since the present case involves the interpretation of Section 17 of the Act, 1996, it is reproduced hereinbelow:
All Offline Claim Details from 2015 to 21-02-2024
S.No Name of Districts Total Claims Received Sanctioned Rejected Temporary Closed Deficiency Memo Under Process
1 East 765 583 70 45 66 1
2 North-East 1239 856 86 137 160 0
3 North 1843 1031 448 0 364 0
4 North-West 7737 4553 282 1609 445 848
5 West 2321 1468 218 410 201 24
6 South-West 3354 1456 90 930 859 19
7 South 1123 482 66 252 323 0
8 Central 48 27 15 6 0 0
9 New-Delhi 5 3 1 1 0 0
10 South-East
11 Shahdra
TOTAL 18435 10459 1276 3390 2418 892
All Online Claim Details from 2015 to 21-02-2024
S. No Name of Districts Total Received Pending For Scrutiny Scrutiny by DA Objection raised by DS/SO Pending at DS/SO Approved by DS/SO Rejected/ Cancelled
1 East 56 2 54 27 25 0 2
2 North-East 114 8 106 94 4 0 8
3 North 104 0 104 74 30 0 0
4 North-West 215 53 162 158 4 0 0
5 West 532 122 410 278 120 0 11
6 South-West 387 130 256 170 87 0 0
7 South 79 7 72 53 1 1 17
8 Central 10 3 7 1 4 0 2
9 New-Delhi 4 0 4 2 2 0 0
10 South-East 8 6 2 0 0 0 2
11 Shahdra 17 1 16 0 16 0 0
TOTAL 1526 332 1193 857 293 1 42
17. Effect of non-payment of contribution.When a beneficiary has not paid his contribution under sub-section (1) of section 16 for a continuous period of not less than one year, he shall cease to be a beneficiary:
Provided that if the Secretary of the Board is satisfied that the non-payment of contribution was for a reasonable ground and that the building worker is willing to deposit the arrears, he may allow the building worker to deposit the contribution in arrears and on such deposit being made, the registration of building worker shall stand restored.
9.
Upon a reading of the said provision, this Court is of the opinion that the interpretation adopted by the Delhi BOCW Board is contrary to the mandate of the statute and settled principles of law.
10.
On a plain reading of the provision, it is evident that a worker under the Act, 1996 ceases to be a beneficiary upon his failure to pay his contribution under Section 16 of the Act, 1996 for a period of not less than one year. The proviso thereto empowers the Secretary of the Board to restore the registration of a worker subject to conditions mentioned in the proviso.
11.
Even otherwise, it is trite law that legislations which are aimed at social and economic welfare of a class of people should be interpreted widely and liberally. If a provision in a beneficial legislation is reasonably capable of two constructions then that construction should be preferred which furthers the object of the legislation and is more beneficial to those in whose interest the legislation has been passed. [See: Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. R. Rajappa (1978 3 SCR 207)].
12.
The Act, 1996 has ostensibly been enacted for the welfare of construction workers and to provide for their safety, health and welfare measure. Therefore, any interpretation which results in denial of beneficial measures to these workers will not only run afoul of the intended legislative objective but also settled principles of law.
13.
This Court is of the view that denial of benefits by Delhi BOCW Board on the ground that the applicant-worker has failed to pay contribution to renew his/her registration after the validity of his/her registration has come to an end is incorrect. This Court holds that the worker shall continue to be entitled to benefits under the Act for a period of one year from the date he/she is liable to pay fresh contribution as per Section 16 of the Act, 1996. The unpaid contribution from the date it became due shall be adjusted against the benefit due and payable to the construction worker.
14.
However, this Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that for payment of any benefit under the Act, 1996, Section 14(1) shall have to be complied with i.e. the construction worker would have to be engaged in building and other construction work for at least ninety days in a year. Consequently, this Court disposes of the present writ petition by directing the respondent-Board to re-consider all the
rejected/cancelled/temporary closed/deficiency memo/objection/welfare claim applications both in the offline and online mode as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the aforesaid interpretation of Section 17 of the Act, 1996.
15.
To make the aforesaid exercise meaningful, this Court directs that the details of all the workmen (including the details of deficiency memo and/or rejected orders) whose claims have not been sanctioned shall be forwarded to the petitioner through email. The petitioner is directed to provide the said email address to the respondent within one week. With the aforesaid declaration and directions, present writ petition stands disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J FEBRUARY 22, 2024 KA