Disposed

Veegaland Developers Private Limited v. Union of India

Kerala HC7 Jun 2024WP(C)/1807/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A construction company challenged PF notices claiming coverage under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act and Cess Act instead of the EPF Act. The court noted Section 63 of the BOCW Act saves more beneficial laws, directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to assess which scheme is more beneficial with hearing to petitioner, conclude within two months, and take action if EPF sche

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted opportunity: Commissioner to examine beneficiality of schemes after hearing petitioner within two months; interim order vacated.

Veegaland Developers Private Limited Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1807 OF 2016

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VEEGALAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED XIII/300 E-26, 4TH FLOOR, KCF TOWER, BHARAT MATHA COLLEGE ROAD, KAKKANAD, THRIKKAKARA PO, ERNAKULAM - 682 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR B.JAYARAJ.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.S.K.HARISH SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHRAM SAKTHI BHAVAN,RAFI MARGH, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶11

2 THE CENTRAL EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN 14-BHIKHAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 066.

¶12

3 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶13

4 THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR, CGC S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SHRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶17

FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 1807 OF 2016

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner is engaged in the construction activities. As per the averments in this Writ Petition, the petitioner undertakes the construction of apartments and commercial buildings.

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning

¶23

Exts.P12 and P13 notices dated 16.11.2015 and 22.11.2015 respectively, issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction workers are governed by the special enactment viz, the Building and other construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Services) Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Building and other construction Workers Act') which is the latter Act than the Employers Provident fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EPF Act'). He further submits that, the fund had been constituted under Section 24 of the Building and other construction Workers Act. This Act provides for contribution by the construction workers as well as by the Government. He further submits that the Government has thereafter enacted the Building and other construction

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 1807 OF 2016

¶26

Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cess Act'). In the Cess Act, an employer engaged in the construction is required to make contribution upto 2% of the value of the construction, but it should not be less than 1%.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government of Kerala has enacted to the Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment of Conditions of Service) Kerala Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Building and other construction Workers Rules'), which provide for pension to the construction workers, who are registered with the Board.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Building and other Construction Workers Act being the latter Act and Special Act enacted for the benefits of the workers engaged in the construction activity, has to prevail over the provisions of the EPF Act. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner has been making contribution on the Cess Act in the fund and the Rules made by the State Government to provide

¶29

for pension, the petitioner is required to make contribution in respect of the construction workers in the EPF fund. He, therefore, submitted two notices issued by the Provident Fund

¶30

WP(C) NO. 1807 OF 2016

¶31

¶32

Commissioner are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the EPF organisation submits that the provisions of the Building and other

¶33

Construction Workers Act do not have over-riding effect on the other existing law. He further submits that, Section 63 of the Act specifically provides that if provisions of any other legislation are more beneficial than the provisions of the Building and other

¶34

Construction Workers Act, the provisions of such legislation would prevail over the provisions of the said Act. He, therefore, submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Building and other Construction Workers Act is latter in point of time and a Special Act, the provisions of the EPF Act could not be applicable to the establishment of the petitioner is not correct and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

I have considered the submissions.

¶36

It is no doubt that the Building and other

¶37

Construction Workers Act is latter in time and Special Act to protect the interest of the construction workers engaged in the construction activity. However, Section 63 of the said Act provides that if the provisions of any other legislation are more

¶38

WP(C) NO. 1807 OF 2016

¶39

¶40

beneficial than the provisions or scheme framed under the Building and other Construction Workers Act, the provisions of the said Act would prevail over the provisions of Building and other Construction Workers Act, 1996. Section 63 of the Building and other Construction Workers Act reads as under:

¶41

“ 63. Saving of certain laws.

¶42

Nothing contained in this Act shall affect the operation of any corresponding law in a State providing welfare schemes which are more beneficial to the building and other construction workers than those provided for them by or under this Act. “

¶43

Section 63 is being a non-obstinate clause. The question whether the EPF Scheme framed under the EPF Act is more beneficial than the provisions of Building and other Construction Workers Act and Rules made thereunder are examined by the Provident Fund Commissioner, after considering the submissions on behalf of the petitioner.

¶44

In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Provident Fund Commissioner - 3^rd respondent to examine whether the provisions of the Building and other construction Workers Act and Rules made by the State Government, i.e., Building and other construction workers (Regulation and Employment & conditions of Service) Kerala

¶45

WP(C) NO. 1807 OF 2016

¶46

¶47

Rules are more beneficial than the EPF Scheme. If the Provident Fund Commissioner finds that the Scheme framed under the EPF Act is more beneficial than the provisions of the Building and other Construction Workers Act and Rules made thereunder, then appropriate action shall be taken against the petitioner. The Provident Fund Commissioner should give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and the petitioner shall not take adjournment before the Commissioner. The entire proceedings have to be concluded within a period of two months from today. Interim order if any stands vacated.

¶48

Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDGE

¶49

lsn

¶50

WP(C) NO. 1807 OF 2016

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1807/2016

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54