Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 680 (HP)

Soma Devi v. State Of H. P.

2019-05-31

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By the medium of extant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following main relief(s): "(i) release the amount of Cheque No. 005594, dated 31-10-2014, i.e. Rs.21,000/-, i.e. Rupees 21,000/-, sanctioned in favour of the p. vide Annexure P-1. (ii) issue identity card to the petitioner against her registration No. BOCW/LO/KNG/06/4637. (iii) release all the benefits to the petitioner accruing under the Himachal Pradesh Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Fund, The Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and the rules framed there under, in future." 2. Central Government, with a view to regulate the employment and conditions of services of the Building and Other Construction Workers and with a view to provide for their safety, health and welfare measures and several other matter, connected therewith or incidental thereto, enacted "the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (hereinafter, 'Act') and this Act came into force on the first day of March, 1996. S.12 of the Act ibid provides for registration of building workers as beneficiaries, which is reproduced herein below: "12. Registration of building workers as beneficiaries.- (1) Every building worker who has completed eighteen years of age, but has not completed sixty years of age, and who has been engaged in any building or other construction work for not less than ninety days during the preceding twelve months shall be eligible for registration as beneficiary under this Act. (2) An application for registration shall be made in such form, as may be prescribed, to the officer authorized by the Board in this behalf. (3) Every application under sub-section (2) shall be accompanied by such documents together with such fee not exceeding fifty rupees as may be prescribed. (4) If the officer authorized by the Board under sub-section (2) is satisfied that the applicant has complied with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, he shall register the name of the building workers as a beneficiary under this Act; Provided that an application for registration shall not be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. (5) Any person aggrieved by the decision under sub-section (4) may, within thirty days from the date of such decision, prefer an appeal to the Secretary of the Board or any other officer specified by the Board in this behalf and the decision of the Secretary or such other officer on such appeal shall be final: Provided that the Secretary or any other officer specified by the Board in this behalf may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the building worker was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (6) The secretary of the Board shall cause to maintain such registers as may be prescribed." 3. In terms of aforesaid provision of law, every building worker who has completed eighteen years of age, but has not completed sixty years of age, and who has been engaged in any building or other construction work for not less than ninety days during the preceding twelve months shall be eligible for registration as a beneficiary under this Act and an application for registration shall be made in such form, as may be prescribed, to the officer authorized by the Board in this behalf. If the officer authorized by the Board under sub-section (2) is satisfied that the applicant has complied with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, he shall register the name of the building worker as a 'beneficiary' under this Act. It has been specifically provided that an application for registration shall not be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. 4. Chapter V of the Act provides for constitution of a State Welfare Board. S.18 casts a duty upon the State Government to constitute Construction Workers' (Welfare Board). S. 18(3) provides that the Board shall consist of a chairperson, a person to be nominated by the Central Government and such number of other members, not exceeding fifteen, as may be appointed to it by the State Government. Similarly, S. 24 of the Act ibid provides for "Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Fund and its Application. S. 18(3) provides that the Board shall consist of a chairperson, a person to be nominated by the Central Government and such number of other members, not exceeding fifteen, as may be appointed to it by the State Government. Similarly, S. 24 of the Act ibid provides for "Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Fund and its Application. Under S.23, it is provided that the Central Government may, after due appropriation made by Parliament by law in this behalf, make to a Board grants and loans of such sums of money as the Government may consider necessary to enable it to distribute to the beneficiaries strictly for the purposes as defined under the Act. 5. In the case at hand, petitioner who is undisputedly a building worker, applied for her registration with the respondent No.3 in the month of February, 2014 enclosing therewith requisite documents. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3, after examination of documents adduced on record by the petitioner, registered her name vide Registration No. BOCW/LO/KNG/06/4637 dated 25.3.2014 as a building worker beneficiary, however at that time, petitioner was not given identity card subsequent to her aforesaid registration. The petitioner, on account of marriage of her son applied to respondent No.3 for help. Respondent No.2, sanctioned a sum of Rs.21,000/- in favour of the petitioner vide Cheque No. 005594 dated 31.10.2014 vide letter No. BOCW/Acctts./marriage assistance(247)/Sml/2013-4203, dated 3.11.2014 (Annexure P4), but interestingly, aforesaid amount never came to be released in favour of the petitioner despite her visiting the office of respondent N.3 repeatedly. Since despite repeated requests having been made by the petitioner, respondents failed to pay the amount as referred to above, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 6. Respondents No.1 to 3 by way of reply-affidavit, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to application having been made by the petitioner for registration as a beneficiary under the Act, have stated that since the petitioner's form was not complete in all respects, she was advised to furnish complete details. Respondents further stated that the petitioner failed to do the needful within stipulated time, as such, her case could not be considered. Respondents further stated that the petitioner failed to do the needful within stipulated time, as such, her case could not be considered. Respondents have further stated that the application submitted by the petitioner was not complete in all respects, as the signature of the employer, his full name and complete address of the establishment in Form No. 27 were not given, hence, petitioner was registered provisionally on 25.3.2014 as a beneficiary vide aforesaid registration number with the following remark, "Subject to the condition to obtain signature of employer on form No. 27 alongwith full name and address of establishment in which the worker has worked or working". 7. Respondents have further stated that despite ample opportunity given to the General Secretary of Trade Union, though whom application of petitioner and other similarly situate persons were submitted, no heed was paid to the repeated reminders sent by respondents, as such, no fault can be found with the respondents and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. It has been further stated in the reply that the claim application for marriage of the petitioner's son was submitted by the petitioner in the office of respondent No.3 on 9.6.2014, after rejection of her application form, but inadvertently her claim was sent to respondent No.2 as a consequence of which, cheque amounting to Rs.21,000/- was ordered to be issued in her favour by oversight. 8. Mr. B.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court Notification dated 2.1.2015, published in Rajpatra of Himachal Pradesh, contended that there was no requirement for the petitioner to submit her application through Contractor of the building in which she was working as a building worker because, as per amended provision i.e. Rule 266 of the HP Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008, building worker intending to get his/her name registered as a beneficiary under the Act can also enclose certificate issued by Bhawan Evam Anya Sanirman Karmkar Sangh or Gram Panchayat or Executive Officer of the urban local body concerned. While referring to documents placed on record alongwith rejoinder filed to the reply of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that bare perusal of application filed by petitioner praying therein for registration reveals that she had furnished complete details with regard to work in which she was employed as a building worker. While referring to documents placed on record alongwith rejoinder filed to the reply of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that bare perusal of application filed by petitioner praying therein for registration reveals that she had furnished complete details with regard to work in which she was employed as a building worker. He further contended that bare perusal of annexures P-6 and P-8, clearly suggests that the petitioner also submitted certificate issued by Karmkar Sangh and Gram Panchayat concerned in support of her claim, as such, there is no force in the arguments of Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General that since incomplete form was submitted, name of the petitioner could not be registered as beneficiary under the Act. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that application of the petitioner for registration as building worker for having benefit under the Act could not be rejected by the respondents on the ground that she had not furnished complete details with regard to employer/establishment with whom she has rendered her services as a building worker because as has been taken note herein above, Department of Labour Employment, vide Notification dated 31.12.2014, amended Rule 266 of the Himachal Pradesh Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008, whereby in the absence of certificate or wage slips from the employer or contractor or copy of muster roll or attendance rolls, certificate issued by Karmkar Sangh and Gram Panchayat concerned can also be furnished by applicant intending to get his/her name registered under the Act. 10. In the case at hand, undisputedly the petitioner in her application annexure P-4, has categorically stated that she rendered her services as a building/construction worker during construction work of bridge at Gaggal Khadd, Kangra with effect from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014. Kamgar Sangh by way of certificate dated 15.2.2014, Annexure P-6, has categorically certified that the petitioner is a Member of Bhawan Evam and Annya Sannirman Kamgar Sangh, registered under Registration No. 1899 and she is working as a labourer for the last five years regularly. Gram Panchayat, Gaggal vide Annexure P-8, has also certified that the petitioner has been working as a building worker with effect from 1.4.2012 to 28.2.2015 and has completed more than 90 days with effect from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014 i.e. 100 days. Gram Panchayat, Gaggal vide Annexure P-8, has also certified that the petitioner has been working as a building worker with effect from 1.4.2012 to 28.2.2015 and has completed more than 90 days with effect from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014 i.e. 100 days. Petitioner has categorically stated that aforesaid documents placed on record by her alongwith rejoinder have been supplied to her under Right to Information Act by the office of respondent No.2, as such, respondents cannot be allowed to say that the petitioner, while applying under the Act has failed to place on record documents as per Form 27. 11. In the case at hand, respondents have admitted the factum with regard to petitioner being registered as a beneficiary under the Act but the stand taken in the reply that registration was provisional, is highly untenable because there is no provision under the Act which provides for provisional registration. As has been noticed herein above, Act came to be enacted with the sole purpose to regulate the employment and conditions of service of Building and Other Construction Workers and to provide for their safety, health and welfare measures. In the case at hand, respondents sanctioned Rs.21,000/- in favour of petitioner for the purpose of marriage of her son but subsequently made her run from pillar to post to have that money that too on very flimsy grounds. Since application form filed by petitioner was complete in all respects, action of the respondents in not registering her name, issuing identity card and thereafter not releasing the benefit under the Act ibid, cannot be said to be justifiable and deserves to be set aside. 12. Consequently, present writ petition is allowed. Respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to issue identity card to the petitioner against her registration No. BOCW/LO/KNG/06/4637 and release a sum of Rs.21,000/- sanctioned in her favour i.e. Annexure P-1, expeditiously, preferably within three weeks. 13. The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications, if any.