Hari Ram v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board

1. Allowed, subject to the Petitioner filing typed copies of dim annexures within a period of four weeks.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

3. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner interalia seeking the following prayers: “a) Direct the Respondent Board to restore registration of the Petitioner till 01.01.2020 and to sanction the pension and release the dues of the Petitioner with 12 per cent per annum from 01.02.2020 onwards;”

4. Issue Notice. Learned Counsel for the Respondent accepts Notice. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposal today itself.

5. The grievance of the Petitioner as articulated in the present Petition is that the Petitioner was a building worker registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as “the BOCW Act”] with effect from 07.11.2014. It is contended that the Petitioner superannuated on 01.01.2022 and thus became eligible to receive pension. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the non-sanction of his pension under the BOCW Act.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to rely on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Geeta v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board[1] (which was upheld by a Division Bench by order dated 19.03.2024 in LPA No. 228/2024 in the matter of Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board v. Geeta[2] ). He further submits that the decision in the present matter is covered by a judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C)16525/2023 titled Man Kunwar v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board[3].

7. This Court in the Man Kunwar case while relying upon these judgments, had allowed an Application filed under the BOCW Act and had set aside the order of the Respondent/Board in the following terms:

9.[1] The intention of the legislature was not to punish or deprive the worker to who failed to renew his/her registration but to provide a remedy to enable the worker to overcome the difficulties caused by non-renewal. Section 17 of the BOCW Act is one such remedial provision. The proviso to Section 17 of the BOCW Act thus states that where there are reasonable grounds for non-payment and the worker deposits the arrears, the delay can be condoned and the registration restored. It reads as under:

10. It is no longer res integra that a beneficial legislation must be construed liberally and interpreted in a manner that advances its purpose so as to fructify the legislative intent. The Supreme Court in Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn. And Anr.4held that a beneficial legislation must be construed in a correct perspective and where two views are possible on its applicability, a view which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred. The relevant extract is reproduced below:

the Act as admittedly the head office employees are covered by the Act, but once such an employee, whether working on the administrative side or connected with the actual transportation of goods, if transferred to the Bombay branch even with his consent, cannot be governed by the beneficial provisions of the Act...” [Emphasis supplied]

11. In Builders Association of India and Ors v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.5, while upholding the Constitutionality of the BOCW Act, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Act is a beneficial legislation aimed towards the welfare of building and other construction workers. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as: “5.[8] The scheme of the BOCW Act indicates that the central focus of this statute is the building and construction worker and the welfare of such worker. Clearly the BOCW Act belongs to the genre of labour welfare legislation relatable to Articles 39(e), 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [1984] 2 SCR 67 explained that such legislation would be straightaway enforceable under Article 21 which enshrines the right to human dignity. It was explained that (SCC p.184): "where legislation is already enacted by the State providing these basic requirements to the workmen and thus investing their right to live with basic human dignity, with concrete reality and content, the State can certainly be obligated to ensure observance of such legislation for inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21.

5.9. The BOCW Act envisages a network of authorities at the Central and State levels to ensure that the benefit of the legislation is made available to every building worker. The provisions concerning registration of workers, providing them with identity cards, constitution of Welfare Boards and registration of beneficiaries under the Fund, providing for augmentation of the Fund and specifying the purposes for which the Fund will be used, providing for the safety and health of the worker, making the contravention of the provisions of the statute punishable and entailing penalties for the violator all go to emphasise the primary purpose of the BOCW Act, which is the welfare of the building and construction worker. These aspects of the BOCW Act are sought to be supplemented in considerable measure by the making of the Central Rules in 1998. Detailed rules have been made with regards to particular aspects of safety in construction work and for the health and welfare of the workers.”