Denying Benefits To Construction Workers Citing Their Failure To Pay Contribution To Renew Registration Is Incorrect: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that denial of benefits to construction workers by the Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board on the ground that the worker has failed to pay contribution to renew his or her registration after the validity of the registration has come to an end is incorrect. “This Court holds that the worker shall continue to be entitled to benefits...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that denial of benefits to construction workers by the Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board on the ground that the worker has failed to pay contribution to renew his or her registration after the validity of the 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,” a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said.
The court added that the unpaid contribution from the date it became due shall be adjusted against the benefit due and payable to the construction worker.
The bench was dealing with a PIL seeking direction on the Board to revise its methodology or criteria used for categorising the workers' registration status under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996, as 'current or live' and 'lapsed or non-live'.
The plea, filed by the National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour, contended that the current methodology or criteria used by the Board is violative of Section 17 of the enactment.
The bench observed that the Act of 1996 has ostensibly been enacted for the welfare of construction workers and to provide for their safety, health and welfare measures.
It said that any interpretation which results in the denial of beneficial measures to the construction workers will not only run afoul of the intended legislative objective but also settled principles of law.
The bench however agreed with the submission of the Board's counsel that for payment of any benefit under the Act, 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,” the court said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Chirayu Jain, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent: Mr.Abhay Dixit with Mr.Akhilesh Dixit, Advocates
Title: NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR CENTRAL LEGISLATION ON CONSTRUCTION LABOUR v. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BOARD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 209