Registration, Renewal And Welfare Schemes For Construction Workers Cannot Be Suspended Citing Election Code: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (November 7) while quashing the order of the Maharashtra Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Board (MBOCWWB), by which it stopped the fresh registration, renewal of registrations, distribution of benefits such as protective gears, essential gears, household utility sets, grant of fresh approvals under the housing scheme and publicity work of the Board, citing the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) in view of the upcoming Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections.

A division bench of Justices Arif Doctor and Somsekhar Sundaresan ordered the MBOCWWB to forthwith start the operations of the various schemes under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996.

The bench was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by at least 8 different associations of labourers or construction workers, all challenging the circular of the Board which notified the suspension of various services like fresh registration of workers, renewal of registrations, distribution of welfare schemes etc. 

The judges opined that the provisions of the MCC will not interfere with the operations of the various schemes under the Act of 1996, which is meant for labourers and construction workers.

"We are left in no manner of doubt that there is nothing in the MCC that would interfere with conduct of ongoing statutory activity administering the provisions of the Act of 1996 and the schemes made thereunder. Likewise, there is nothing in the Act and the schemes made thereunder that would render continued implementation of pre-existing benefits under pre-existing schemes and that too consistent with past practice as existing before commencement of the MCC that would be violative in letter or spirit. Consequently, we are of the view that the Impugned Circular, inasmuch as it seeks to suspend registration of workers as beneficiaries and renewal of such registration, and the provision of benefits to such beneficiaries under pre-existing terms of pre-existing schemes, consistent with past practice, deserves to be quashed and set aside," the bench said in its order.

It must be remembered that the 1996 Act is a welfare legislation passed by the Parliament, leaving the administration in each State to the respective State Governments, the bench said, adding, "Building and construction work is essentially carried out by fragmented and unorganised labour, and the Act is evidently a vital piece of legislation seeking to accord health, safety and welfare measures for such labour by regulating the employment of such labour and stipulating norms for their terms of service."

The bench highlighted the welfare measures that would become available to the registered beneficiaries, which would include life insurance and other disability insurance cover under the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana and the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana. Likewise, benefits such as provision of health and maternity cover, allowances for education and housing, as also for skill development and a potential pension plan has been envisaged, the bench noted.

From a perusal of the electoral MCC, the bench found that its provisions are aimed at preventing abuse of powers by political parties in government to influence voting behaviour of the electorate.

"By no stretch, in our opinion, would the MCC require suspension of administration of pre-existing schemes formulated under the Act. The right to register in order to avail of benefits under the schemes made under the Act, is a statutory right conferred by Parliament. Such right cannot be suspended in the name of elections," the judges made it clear.

In matters of payment of cash to members of society, the MCC, the bench observed, essentially interferes with discretionary payments to members of the electorate after elections are announced. The MCC prohibits announcement of new projects, new programmes and grant of new concessions, and indeed the making of new promises, which have the effect of influencing the voters in favour of the party in power, the bench added.

"Explicitly, it provides that MCC cannot be given as an excuse for not commissioning such schemes or for allowing such schemes to remain idle. What the MCC stipulates is that the implementation or commissioning of such schemes must be done by civil authorities without associating political functionaries and without any fanfare or ceremonies, so that no impression is created that such commissioning has been done with a view to influencing the electorate in favour of the ruling party," the bench underscored. 

The judges, agreed with the contentions of advocate Sudha Bharadwaj, the counsel representing the construction workers' associations, and argued that none of the benefits already envisaged under the Act for the State of Maharashtra and already being implemented under the schemes made under the Act, as at the time the MCC was brought into force for the forthcoming elections, would constitute provision of any inducement to the electorate in the State.

It is evident that in view of the right to register being dependent on the mixed question of fact and law as to whether a registered worker has worked for at least 90 days in a year in building and other construction work, annual renewal of registration has to necessarily be a continuous and ongoing exercise, the judges noted.

"Such registration and renewal process has to necessarily be administered round the year if the mandate of Parliament has to run its intended course. Consequently, there is no basis to suspend the same on account of the electoral MCC. What would be prohibited under it is the introduction of any new measure in the form of either policy of a revision of size of benefits when the MCC is in force. Likewise, what would be prohibited is the creation of any fanfare and holding of ceremonies with the involvement of political functionaries," the judges said while quashing the circular stopping new registrations of workers.

Appearance:

Advocate Sudha Bharadwaj appeared for the Petitioners. 

Assistant Government Pleader Himanshu Takke represented the State.

Advocate Akshay Shinde represented the State Election Commission. 

Case Title: Maharashtra Rajya Bandhkam Kamgar Sanyukt Kriti Samiti vs State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition (L) 33597 of 2024]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 576

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment