Delhi High Court
National Campaign Committee For ... vs Delhi Building And Other Construction ... on 22 February, 2024
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~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)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
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 'non-
live/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:-
All Offline Claim Details from 2015 to 21-02-2024
S.No Name of Total Sanctioned Rejected Temporary Deficiency Under
Districts Claims Closed Memo Process
Received
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- 7737 4553 282 1609 445 848
West
5 West 2321 1468 218 410 201 24
6 South- 3354 1456 90 930 859 19
West
Delhi
10 South-East
11 Shahdra
All Online Claim Details from 2015 to 21-02-2024
S. Name Total Pending Scrutiny Objection Pending Approved Rejected/
No of Received For by DA raised by at by DS/SO Cancelled
Districts Scrutiny DS/SO DS/SO
East
West
West
Delhi
East
8. Since the present case involves the interpretation of Section 17 of the
Act, 1996, it is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"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
