Allowed

M/S.Imperial Engineering Company v. the Kerala Construction Workers

Kerala HC1 Jun 2016WP(C)/20546/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the petitioner's electrical system work does not constitute 'construction work' under the 1989 Act. Consequently, the respondent corporation is not barred from the nature of work but must refund a specific retained amount.

What did the court decide?

The respondent corporation must refund Rs. 20,278/- to the petitioner within two months; failing which, 6% interest is payable. Earlier remitted deductions remain unrecoverable.

M/S.Imperial Engineering Company Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20546 of 2003 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M/S.IMPERIAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN 35 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K. EASO JOHN.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE KERALA CONSTRUCTION WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶11

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KINFRA HOUSE, T.C. 14/1026, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 10.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR, SC, KCWWF BOARD R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH,SC FOR R2

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 20546 of 2003 (U)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶17

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF SUCH CONTRACT FOR DOING OVERHEAD POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR KINFRA

¶18

SMALL INDUSTRIES PART AT TALASSERY, KANNUR.

¶19

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/02/1999 IN OP NO.7397/1994.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶25

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20546 OF 2003

¶26

¶27

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner had undertaken a contract work of the 2^nd respondent and the grievance projected herein is the deduction of contribution due under the Kerala Construction Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1989 (for brevity 'Act of 1989'). The petitioner's essential contention is that the contract work carried out by the petitioner would not come under the definition of construction work as defined under the Act of 1989. The work undertaken by the petitioner as evident from Ext.P1 contract agreement is the manufacture and supply of materials, erection, testing and Commissioning of electrical system. Petitioner's contention is that there is no construction work as such involved and the contract was manufacture and supply of switch boards, poles, erection, testing and commissioning of electrical system. The definition of contract work as is seen from the Act specifically

¶30

Section 2(c) does not include the work done by the petitioner. Section 2(c) Act of 1989 reads as follows:

¶31

W.P.(C).No. 20546 of 2003

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

“(c) “Construction work” means any construction work carried out by the State Government or quasi-governmental agency or by a public or private undertaking or by a Society or by a private individual and includes construction of any building, road, pathway, causeway, bridge, culvert, canal, tank, channel, pond, dam, tunnel, sea walls, walls for the prevention of soil erosion, embankments, bunds, drainage, kanas, culverts, jetties, compound walls, well, and the like, breaking of rocks and rubbles and the repair in whatsoever manner relating thereto and the demolition thereof but does not include the construction works relating to places of public worship or construction work for a residence by a person for his own residential purposes costing not more than Rs.One lakh, repair works other than extension and reconstruction of his residence, construction work undertaken by the Government of India or any of its establishments or institutions:”

¶34

A reading of the definition would specifically indicate

¶35

that for the construction work contributions are mandatory as a welfare measure which is thus specifically enumerated in the definition clause as the “like activities”. Looking at the definition it cannot be said that erection of poles and commissioning the power lines would fall under such definition. The work undertaken by the petitioner would not be one on which the contributions are liable to be paid. In such circumstances the 2^nd

¶36

W.P.(C).No. 20546 of 2003

¶37

-:3:-

¶38

respondent cannot deduct such amount from the contract amount.

¶39

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the amounts are deducted at the

¶40

time when the bills are sanctioned and payments are made. It is seen that the amount deducted in the year 2003, at the time of payment effected to the petitioner, had already been remitted to the Welfare Fund Board. The dispute raised was only with the deductions made from the final bill. Having regard to the fact that the amounts already deducted were remitted to the Welfare Board, the 2^nd respondent cannot be directed to refund such amounts. The petitioner was aware of the deductions made earlier which was not challenged and were paid to the Board without demur and that cannot be directed to be refunded at this stage. However, even according to the 2^nd respondent's counter affidavit, an amount of Rs.20,278/- is available with the 2^nd respondent which has not been remitted to the 1^st respondent Board in view of the interim stay passed in this case.

¶41

W.P.(C).No. 20546 of 2003

¶42

-:4:-

¶43

Under such circumstances, the 2^nd respondent shall,

¶44

within a period of two months from today, refund the amounts

¶45

kept with them as per the interim order, to the petitioner, failing which the 2^nd respondent shall be liable to pay interest at the rate

¶46

of 6%. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶49

ttb/02/06

M/S.Imperial Engineering Company v. the Kerala Construction Workers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Imperial Engineering Company v. the Kerala Construction Workers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary,Mukkom Grama Panchayath Vs the Hon'Ble Ombudsman for Local Self Gov

Lalu T.C. Vs Avanur Grama Panchayat

Babu C.George Vs P.J.Jose

K.S.E.D.C. Ltd. Vs Keltron Employees Association

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs the Mahatma Gandhi

Channanikkadu Kasheerloadaka Co-Op. Vs K.C.Rajappan