New Adil Educational Society Thru. Manager Musahib Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner/ Cess Fixation Officer/ Sangrahak Adhikari, Hardoi (respondent No. 3).

¶11

The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to implement the order dated 19.07.25025 passed by the respondent No. 3 upon the petitioner for non payment of Cess in respect of the Institutions under Section 9 of the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996.

¶12

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 has been passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby a penalty of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight Lakh Rupees) has been imposed upon the petitioner for non payment of Cess in respect of the institution under Section 9 of the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 02.11.2025, 03.11.2024 & 21.01.2025, notices were issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 in respect of the same issue to which, reply was

¶14

WRIC No. 10402 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

submitted by the petitioner on 27.02.2025 but without taking into consideration the said reply, the authorities have passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that without adhering to the provision of Section 4(2) of the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996, the authorities have passed the impugned order and as such the same is liable to be quashed being not in accordance with law.

¶17

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. He submits that the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 and thus, the present appeal is not entertainable on the ground of availability of statutory remedy.

¶18

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner, without filing the statutory appeal as available to him under law, has approached this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as available under law.

¶19

In view of what has been stated here-in-above, the present writ petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 along with an application for interim relief before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from today and in case if such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid time as granted here-inabove, the appellate authority shall entertain the said appeal on merits without raising any objection on the limitation and shall pass appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶20

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶22

November 11, 2025 (Manoj K.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

New Adil Educational Society Thru. Manager Musahib Ali and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New Adil Educational Society Thru. Manager Musahib Ali and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Kumar Cold Storage Thru. Director,Shri Yash Kumar Vs District Horticulture Officer,Lucknow and 6 Others

Smt. Vinti Pandey vs Dhananjay Tiwari

Anjali Singh vs Anuj Kumar Choudhary

Smt. Rajkumari Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division ) Court No. 10 Raebareli and 6 Others

Rajneesh Kumar Tripathi and Another Vs Civil Judge Malihabad (Senior Division) Lko. and 8 Others

Lalit Mohan Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 7 Others