Registered Construction Worker Can File Consumer Complaint Against Welfare Board: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has held that a construction worker who is registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and is a beneficiary of the Scheme made under the Rules framed pursuant to the enactment, is a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

In this case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected the contention that such a construction worker is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. In the appeal filed against the NCDRC, the contention raised was that the Act will not cover the services provided by the State in the discharge of its welfare functions which are highly subsidized or free. On the other hand, the Amicus Curiae, submitted that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a valuable provision made by the Parliament to provide access to justice and the purpose embedded in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 will be defeated if a construction worker is required to approach a civil court or the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to seek relief of a small claim. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, at the outset, said:

"The appellants have been entrusted with the solemn duty of enforcing and implementing the provisions of the welfare legislation which has been enacted by Parliament specifically to ameliorate the plight of construction workers. Construction workers belong to the unorganized sector of the economy. Many among them are women. Child labour is rampant. Their vulnerabilities have been attempted to be safeguarded by a law which unfortunately has not been implemented either in letter, or in spirit. Yet, we have in the present case, the spectacle of a statutory welfare board seeking to exempt itself from being held accountable to the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act 1986."

Taking note of the scheme of the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act and Rules, the Court observed:

In view of the statutory scheme, the services which are rendered by the Board to the beneficiaries are not services which are provided free of charge so as to constitute an exclusion from the statutory definition contained in Section 2(1)(o) and Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The true test is not whether the amount which has been contributed by the beneficiary is adequate to defray the entire cost of the expenditure envisaged under the scheme. So long as the service which has been rendered is not rendered free of charge, any deficiency of service is amenable to the fora for redressal constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Act does not require an enquiry into whether the cost of providing the service is entirely defrayed from the price which is paid for availing of the service. As we have seen from the definition contained in Section 2(1)(d), a 'consumer' includes not only a person who has hired or availed of service but even a beneficiary of a service. The registered workers are clearly beneficiaries of the service provided by the Board in a statutory capacity.

While dismissing the appeal, the Court said that there is a need to ensure a sense of public accountability by allowing consumers a redressal in the context of the discharge of non-sovereign functions which are not rendered free of charge. It observed:

As a matter of interpretation, the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 must be construed in a purposive manner. Parliament has provided a salutary remedy to consumers of both goods and services. Public authorities such as the appellants who have been constituted under an enactment of Parliament are entrusted with a solemn duty of providing welfare services to registered workers. The workers who are registered with the Board make contributions on the basis of which they are entitled to avail of the services provided in terms of the schemes notified by the Board. Public accountability is a significant consideration which underlies the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The evolution of jurisprudence in relation to the enactment reflects the need to ensure a sense of public accountability by allowing consumers a redressal in the context of the discharge of non-sovereign functions which are not rendered free of charge. This test is duly met in the present case.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No 2014 of 2020
Case name: The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officers vs. Kesar Lal
Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi
Counsel: Sr Adv Manish Singhvi  

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment