This writ petition challenged a notice issued under the Building and other Contractors Workers Welfare Cess Act. The court deemed it necessary to finalise the proceedings by considering liability objections before deciding the petition.
Directed the 2nd respondent to take a final decision on Ext.P3 notice after considering objections raised in Ext.P4.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 13339 of 2015
PETITIONERS:
1 ANTONY PRINCE, aged 28, S/O.P.A.LAZARUS, VI/257, HERMITAGE, PURAPPILLYKKAVU, KARUMALLUR.P.O,PIN-683 511.
2 ALICE PRINCE, AGED 58, W/O.ANTONY PRINCE, VI/257, HERMITAGE, PURAPPILLYKKAVU, KARUMALLUR.P.O, PIN-683 511.
BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.JOSEPH KURIAN VALLAMATTAM SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, FORT KOCHI-682 004.
3 SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 45, PROPRIETOR, M/S YESKAY CONSTRUCTIONS, SREE MURUGHA BUILDINGS, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.
BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU.T.K
WP(C)No13339/2015 2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No13339/2015 3
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3
notice issued to the petitioners under the Building
and other Contractors Workers Welfare Cess Act,
1996. The said notice issued under Section 4 of the
Act and Rule 6 of the rules framed thereunder
required the petitioners to submit returns with
respect to the building construction carried out by
them in Karimaloor Grama Panchayat.
2.The petitioners had constructed a building
on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit. For the
purpose of carrying out the construction the
petitioners had entered into Ext.P2 agreement for
civil contract works with the 3rd respondent. After
completion of the construction, Ext.P3 notice was
issued, to which the petitioners submitted Ext.P4
reply. The principal contention in the reply, as
also in this writ petition is that, as per Section 2
(i) (iii) of the Cess Act, the definition of
WP(C)No13339/2015 4
employer, in relation to building or other
construction work carried on by or through a
contractor, or by the employment of building works
supplied by a contractor, would take in the
contractor also. It is therefore contended that even
if the petitioners could be held to be employers,
going by the definition mentioned above, the 3rd
respondent contractor would also fall within the
definition of employer and therefore the liability
could not be mulcted on the petitioners alone. The
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent points out
that the building constructed by the petitioners was
a big building and that under Ext.P2 contract he had
been entrusted only with the structural work of the
building. It is pointed out that, had the schedule
attached to the agreement been produced, this aspect
would have been clear. I do not consider it
necessary to go into those factual disputes for the
purpose of deciding this writ petition. Since the
petitioners have submitted their explanation,
WP(C)No13339/2015 5
wherein the contention with regard to their
liability, as well as the liability of the
contractor, if any, has been raised, it is only
appropriate that the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3
be finalised, if not already concluded. The writ
petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2nd
respondent to take a final decision on Ext.P3, if
not already taken, after considering the objections
raised in Ext.P4.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
YKB
WP(C)No13339/2015 6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 08.01.2009 ISSUED BY THE KARIMALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR CIVIL CONTRACT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.02.2015 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 4.3.15.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
YKB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proceedings regarding a notice issued under Section 4 of the Building and other Contractors Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996, should be instituted to consider objections.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ANTONY PRINCE & ANR
STATE OF KERALA
DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER
SUNIL KUMAR
V.G. ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court