Allowed

M/s. Icsa(India ) Limited v. The Chief General Manager (Project Andrac)

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024WP/28744/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the deduction of 1% labour cess from bills payable without prior assessment of liability. The court found the Respondents acted without jurisdiction and competence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; the action of respondents in deducting labour cess is declared illegal and arbitrary; miscellaneous petitions dismissed; no costs.

M/s. Icsa(India ) Limited Vs The Chief… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:28744 OF 2010

¶7

Between:

¶8

lV/s. ICSA(lndia ) Limited, R/b its Project Co-ordinator Mr.N.V.Rao Plot No.12, Software Heights, Software, Units Layout, Cyberabad, Hyderabad-50008'1

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Chief General Manager (Project ANDRAC), APNPDCL, Kazipet Warangal District

¶12

Chief General N,4anager (Expenditure), APNPDCL, Kazipet, Warangal^District 3. Chief General Manager (Commercial & Operations, APNPDCL, Warangal District

¶13

...RESP.NDENT'

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^{Court may be} pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deducting^{1% of the} amount towards Labour Cess out of Bills^payable in favor of the^{petitionerson} material value without assessing and determining the liability of^{the petitioner for} payment of Cess on labor by taking into consideration the natural of work awarded in favor of the^petitioner as illegal and arbitrary^{and contraryto The} building and other construction works^(Regulation of employment^{and conditions} of service) Act, 1 996 and the cess act of^'1996

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010^(WPMP. NO:36660 oF 2010)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court maybe pleased to} direct the respondents to^pay the amounts^payable to the^{petitioners,the bills,}

¶17

without deducting labor cess of 1% from the bills pending dispo:sal of the above WP

¶18

l.A. NO: 2OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 36661 0F 2010)

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circums,tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma'1 be pleased to direct the respondents to repay the already deducted^'t % of cess rrvhich is payable to the petitioners

¶20

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2011(WV MP. NO: 845 OF 2011)

¶21

Between:

¶22

The Chief General Manager (Project ANDRAC), APN|PDCL, Kazipet Warangal District

¶23

Chief G_eneral Manager (Expenditure), APNPDCL, Kazipet, Warangal District 3. Chief General Manager (Commercial & Operations, APNF,DCL; Warangal District

¶24

...pETrroNERS/RESpoNDENTs

¶25

AND

¶26

M/s. ICSA(lndia ) Limited, Fl/b its Project Co-ordinator Mr.N.V.Rao Plot No.12, Software Heights, Software, Units Layout, Cyberabad, Hydererbad-500081

¶27

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶28

Petition unde' Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orders piassed in WPMP No. 36660 of 2010 in WP No. 28744 of 2O1O dated 19.11.2010

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C. RAGHU

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TSTRANSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA} RIT .28 1

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Heard Sri C.Raghu,^{learned counse! appearingon} behalf of the^{petitionerand Sri R. VinodReddy, learned} Standing Counsel^{for TGGENCO, appearing on behalf of the} respondents.

¶34

2 The petitioner approached^{the Court seeking prayer} as under:

¶35

"to issue a writ, order^{or directionmoreparticularly} one in the nature^{of WRITOF MANDAMUSdeclaringthe} actions of the^{respondentsin deducting1olo of the amount} out of the bills^{payablein favour of the petitioners towards} labour cess on^{the bills payable the petitioner on the total} value of the^{work withoutassessingand determiningthe} liability of the^{Petitioner for paymentof cess on labour by} taking in to consideration^{the nature of work awarded in} favour of the^{petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary and} contrary to "The^{building and other construction works} (Regulation of employment^{and conditions of service) Act'} 1996 and the^{Cess act, 1996 and passsuch other order} or orders as the^{Hon'ble Court deemsfit and properin} the circumstances^{of the case".}

¶36

It is reprerented^{by the learned counsel appearingon} behalf of the^{petitioner that the subject issue in the present writ}

¶37

¶38

wP 28744 2010

¶39

petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 28.lL.20L3 passed in W.p.Nos.9111 of 2010 and batch in Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs. The Commissioner oF LaboLtr, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others.

¶40

4 The relevant Dort n r.e.raoraDh Nos.4o 2ot the id iudo ment a extra hereu der:

¶41

"40. Applying the above principles and on a plain reading of definition in Section 2 (d) of Act 27 of 1996, that in clear and unambiguous terms excludes application of Act no.27 of 1996 to workers involved in "Buildirrg or other construction works,, in a factory governed by Act, 1948, third respondent being a factory governed by Factories Act, 1949 and petitioners engaged workers to undertake obligations undelr the agreements entered with the third respondent for expansion of the factory, the said workers are exr:luded from the purview of Act 27 of 1996 and therefore no levy can be imposed on petitioners as per provisions of Act 28 of 1996.

¶42

On an interactive analysis of various provisions of the Act,, 1948 and ACts 27 and 28 of 1996, impugned orders of the respondents 1 and 2 in directinq the petitionr:rs to pay 1olo of the contractual amount as; cess under A,cts 27 and 28 of 1996 are without jurisdiction and compretence and are therefore liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

wP 2E744 20lO

) t

Accordingly, the writ^{petitions are allowed.Sequel} to the same, miscellaneous^{petitions, if any shall stand} dismissed. No costs."

¶47

Learned counsel appearing on behalf^{of the petitioner} placing reliance on the aforesaid^{judgment contends that the} petitioner is entitled for the relief as^{prayedfor in the present} writ petition since the order dated^{28.tl.20L3 passedin} W.P.Nos.9111 of 2010 and batch^{has become final.}

¶48

Learned Standing Counsel for^{TGGENCO appearing on} behalf of the respondents does^{not dispute the saidsubmission} made by the learned counsel^{appearingon behalf of the} petitioner.

¶49

7 Takinq in consider tion:

¶50

1 )

¶51

a) the submissions made^{by the learned counsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitaoner and the learned} Standing Counsel for^{TGGENCO appearing on behalf of the} respondents and

¶52

b) the^judgment of this^{Court dated 28'11'2013passed} in W.P.Nos.gl11 of^2O1O and^batch,

¶53

¶54

wP 28744 20tO

¶55

The writ petition is allotired and the impugned action of the respondents in deducting Lo/o ol the amount out of the bills payable in favour of the petitioners towards labour cess on the total value of the work without assessing and determining the liability of the petitaoner for payment of cess on labour by taking into consideration the nature of work awarded in favour of the petationers is declared as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to ..The building and other constructaon works (Regulation of employment and conditions of service) Act, 1996 and the Cess Act, 1996, since the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to pay Lo/o of the contractual amount as cess under Acts 27 and 2g of 1996 is without jurisdiction and competence. However, there shail be no order as to costs.

¶56

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as^above

¶57

Witness THE HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE^{ALOKARADHE,THURSDAY} 'THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENWFOUR

¶58

SD/. L. LAKSHMl BABU A REGISTRAR

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

ON OFFICER

¶61

To, 1. The Chief General Manager (Project ANDRAC), APNPDCL, l(azipet Warangal District

¶62

Chief General Ir/anager (EXpenditure), APNPDCL, Kazipet, V/arangal District J. Chief General Manager (Commerical & Operations, APNPDCL, Warangal District

¶63