1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION NOS.42 & 43 of 2011

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.318 OF 2006

National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour … Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors.        … Respondents

WITH

I.A. NO.6 OF 2011

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.318 OF 2006

O R D E R

By this common order,  we shall  deal with IA No.6 in WP No.318 of  

2006 and Contempt Petition Nos.41 and 42 of 2011.   

In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioner  

inter  alia prayed  for  issuance  of  a  writ  of  mandamus  or  any  other  

appropriate  writ  or  direction  directing  the  respondents  to  forthwith

2

implement the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulations  

of  Employment  and  Conditions  of  Service)  Act,  1996  (hereinafter  

referred  to  as  ‘the  Act’)  and  The  Building  and  Other  Construction  

Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cess  

Act’) in their entirety and, in particular, to establish the Welfare Boards,  

collect  cess,  complete  the  registration  and  grant  benefits  to  the  

beneficiaries  with  immediate  effect  as  per  the  provisions  of  the  

respective Acts.  Further, it is also prayed that the rules and regulations  

relating to the health, safety and welfare of the workers, particularly the  

workers  in  relation  to  building  and  construction  activity,  should  be  

framed and safety equipments including safety harness and safety nets  

should be provided to them at the place of work.  The petitioner has  

impleaded the Union of India and all the 36 States/Union Territories as  

party-respondents to the present petition.

This Court, vide its order dated 28th July, 2006 issued notice to all the  

respondents.  Some of the States and the Union of India had filed their  

replies and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties,  

the Court passed various directions as recorded in different orders of  

the  Court  from  time  to  time  and  the  respondents  were  required  to  

comply  with  these  directions.   Vide  order  dated  12th May,  2008,  a  

direction  was  issued  by  this  Court  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Labour  

Department of each State requiring them to submit a detailed status  

report within eight weeks as to what steps have been taken by them to

3

implement the provisions of the aforesaid two Acts.  Some of the States  

had submitted their reports and it was evident from the content of those  

reports/affidavits  that  the provisions of  both the Acts have not  been  

substantially complied with.  This resulted in passing of detailed order  

by this Court dated 13th January, 2009.  In this order the Court noticed  

that  under Section 6 of  the Act,  the appropriate Government  has to  

appoint  Registration  Officers  and  under  Section  7  of  the  Act  every  

employer  was  to  register  their  establishment  with  the  said  Officer.  

Reference was also made to the obligation on the part of the State to  

constitute the State Welfare Boards under the provisions of Section 18  

the Act.  After noticing that the petitioner had filed a chart indicating the  

steps taken by various Governments, it was evident that many of the  

Governments had not even taken steps as per provisions of the Act.  

The Court, thus, directed as under: -

“We direct the Chief Secretary of the respective States and  Secretary (Labour) of each States and the Union Territories  to take timely steps as per the provisions of the Act, if not  already done. We would like to have the appraisal report in  the first week of May as to what steps have been taken in  this regard.  If any of the State Government has not done  anything pursuant to the Act, urgent steps are to be taken  so that  the benefits  of  this legislation shall  not  go waste.  Otherwise  the  unorganized  workers  of  the  construction  sector will be denied the benefit of the Act.”

The Court  thereafter  passed various orders  and directions  requiring  

respective States to implement the provisions of the Act.  Vide order  

dated 18th January, 2010, the Court noticed the object of the Act as well

4

as  made  reference  to  various  provisions  of  the  Act  and  issued  11  

directions.   These  directions  relate  to  the  constitution  of  the  State  

Welfare Boards by the respective States, holding of meetings by the  

said  Boards  at  regular  intervals  to  discharge  their  statutory  duties,  

creating  awareness  about  the  benefits  of  the  Act  amongst  the  

beneficiaries through media, appointment of Registering Officers and  

setting up centres in each district for that purpose.  This Court further  

directed that all contracts with Government shall require registration of  

workers  under  the  Act  to  give  benefits  of  the  Act  to  the  registered  

persons, the CAG to conduct audit of the entire implementation of the  

Act and use of the allocated funds and finally the Boards to prepare  

detailed reports in regard to the implementation.   

Despite passing of these clear orders by the Court, the provisions of  

the Act have not been implemented in their entirety.  Further, noticing  

the persisting default, the Court passed an order dated 10th September,  

2010 referring to various provisions of the Act as well as the fact that  

the  Central  Government  has  not  even  issued  any  directions  under  

Section 60 of  the Act,  despite the Court’s  order dated 18th January,  

2010.   Noticing the incidences in  that  regard the Court  directed the  

Central  Government  to  issue appropriate directions to  the States as  

well as furnish the status report of Central Advisory Committee as to  

what steps had been taken by them with regard to implementation of  

the  provisions  of  the  respective  Acts.     On subsequent  dates,  the

5

petitioner  submitted  that  the  directions  of  the  Court  as  well  as  the  

provisions of the Act were not being implemented by various States.  

The Court, thus, granted liberty to the petitioner, vide its order dated  

22nd November, 2010, to take out contempt motion State-wise.

The petitioner  filed IA No.  6 of  2011 on 5th January,  2011 primarily  

praying for filing of additional documents.  In the documents annexed to  

this application there were charts giving details of the States which had  

not  constituted the Welfare Boards,  information about  constitution of  

the Cess Collecting Authority, number of workers registered with each  

State and the Schemes framed and implemented.  From the charts, it  

was obvious that most of the States had defaulted in complying with the  

provisions  of  the  Act  and  some  of  them,  in  fact,  had  not  even  

constituted  the  State  Welfare  Boards  despite  the  writ  petition  being  

pending in this Court since the year 2006 and the Court having issued  

various directions in that regard.  The petitioner then filed Contempt  

Petition Nos. 42 of 2011 and 43 of 2011.  

In Contempt Petition No. 42 of 2011, the petitioner has averred that  

Respondent Nos.2 to 10 have failed to take even the preliminary steps  

to constitute the Welfare Boards under Section 18 of the Act and that  

the Central  Government  has neither issued any directions nor taken  

any steps in that behalf.  The defaulters, in this regard, are stated to be  

the  Union  Territories  of  Lakshadweep,  Government  of  the  State  of

6

Meghalaya, Government  of  the State of  Nagaland and the Union of  

India.  The Labour Secretary of the respective States and the Director  

General of Inspection of the Government of India have been impleaded  

as respondents in this petition.   

Contempt  Petition  No.  43  of  2011  has  been  filed  primarily  on  the  

ground that the respondents in that petition had willfully disobeyed the  

orders of this Court, particularly the order dated 18th January, 2010 and  

they have not implemented the provisions of the Act.  The Registering  

Officers  have  not  been  appointed  and  the  workers  are  not  being  

registered, resulting in non-implementation of the schemes for grant of  

benefits and the facilities to such workers.  Defaulters in this regard are  

the  States  of  Maharashtra,  Goa,  Himachal  Pradesh,  Rajasthan,  

Uttarakhand,  Uttar  Pradesh,  Manipur  and  the  Union  Territories  of  

Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Chandigarh, Andaman & Nicobar  

Island.   Their  Labour  Secretaries,  Chief  Inspector  of  Inspection and  

Administrators  have  been impleaded  as  respondents  in  this  petition  

along with the Director General of Inspection, Government of India.

Having referred to the facts on record and the orders of this  

Court  passed from time to  time,  we may now refer  to  some of  the  

provisions of both the statutes which impose a statutory obligation upon  

the respondents to carry out their functions and duties in accordance  

with those provisions and the directions issued by this Court.  Every

7

State is required to constitute a State Welfare Board in accordance with  

the  provisions  of  Section  18  of  the  Act  which  Board,  upon  its  

constitution, is required to discharge its functions under Section 22 of  

the  Act.   Some  of  the  defined  functions  are  to  provide  immediate  

assistance to the beneficiaries, sanction loans, give financial assistance  

for education of children and even make payment of maternity benefits  

to  the  female  beneficiaries.   The appropriate  Government  is  further  

required to appoint Registering officers in terms of Section 6 of the Act  

and the establishments are required to be registered with that officer as  

per the provisions of Section 7.  The beneficiaries/workers are to be  

registered  with  the  officer  authorized  by the  Board  in  that  behalf  in  

accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Section  12  of  the  Act.   The  

beneficiaries  are  required  to  make  their  respective  contributions  in  

terms of Section 16 of the Act.  The consequences of default both of  

the beneficiary and the establishment are provided under the statute  

itself  and  accordingly  appropriate  steps  are  to  be  taken  by  the  

Registering  Authority  and  the  appropriate  Government,  as  the  case  

may be.   

There shall  be levy and collection of  cess at  the rate of  and in  the  

manner specified under Section 3 of the Cess Act and every employer  

has to furnish returns in accordance with Section 4 of that Act.  After its  

assessment  in  accordance  with  law,  the  cess  is  to  be  paid  and  

collected.   The  default  in  payment  thereof  bears  the  penal

8

consequences as well as interest has to be paid on delayed payment of  

cess.  Offences committed by the company and other defaulters are  

punishable under the provisions of the Cess Act.

From the various status reports and the affidavits filed on behalf of the  

respondents,  it  is  clear  that  the  appropriate  Governments  have,  

admittedly, not complied with their statutory duties and functions.  All  

the  application/petitions,  subject  matter  of  the  present  order,  are  

supported  by  affidavit  filed  by  the  co-ordinator  of  the  petitioner  

organization.   Number  of  States,  particularly  Union  Territory  of  

Lakshadweep and States of Meghalaya and Nagaland have not even  

constituted the Welfare Boards in terms of Section 18 of the Act.  The  

State of  Uttar  Pradesh has completed the formality of  constituting a  

Board but it is a one man Board instead of having a minimum of three  

or more members as required under Section 18 of the Act.  The charts  

submitted  by  the  petitioner  further  show  that  no  worker  has  been  

registered by the States of Assam, Mizoram, Sikkim and Jammu and  

Kashmir.   The appropriate Governments and Registering Authorities,  

wherever constituted, particularly the respondent State Governments in  

these application/petitions have failed to either collect the requisite cess  

amount or have collected the same inadequately and in any case have  

failed to distribute the benefits and facilities to the beneficiaries.  In this  

manner  and  for  a  considerable  period,  the  respondents  in  these  

application/petitions have, on the one hand disobeyed the orders of this

9

Court  particularly  orders  dated  18.01.2010,  13.08.2010  and  

10.09.2010,  while  on  the  other  they  have  failed  to  perform  their  

statutory obligations under the provisions of the Act despite directions  

of  this  Court.   Default  on  the  part  of  these  respondents,  thus,  has  

persisted over a long period and the Court is left  with no alternative  

except to pass appropriate directions/orders in accordance with law on  

these two contempt petitions.  In the Circumstances afore-referred, we  

hereby  issue  notice  to  show  cause  why  proceedings  under  the  

Contempt  of  Courts  Act,  1971  be  not  initiated  against  all  the  

respondents in Contempt Petition Nos.42 and 43 of 2011.  Further we  

are  also  compelled  to  direct  the  following  officers  of  the  

respective/appropriate Governments to be present in the Court on the  

next date of hearing :

1. The Labour Secretary,  Ministry of Labour, Sharam Shakti Bhavan, Rafi  Marg, New Delhi.

2. The Labour Secretary Lakshadweep, U.T. of Lakshadweep, Karvarthi – 682 555.

3. The Labour Secretary, Meghalaya, Government of Meghalaya, Department of Labour.  Rilang Building, Shillong – 793 001.

4. The Labour Secretary, Nagaland,

10

Government of Nagaland, Department of Labour. Civil Secretariat, Kohima – 797 001.

5. Director General of Inspection, Government of India, Mansingh Road, New Delhi – 110 011.

With the above orders, we direct these application/petitions to  

be listed after four weeks.   Notice to all the respondents returnable on  

the same date.

.…......................................CJI.

.…..........................................J. [K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan]   

.… …......................................J.

       [Swatanter Kumar] New Delhi, March 15, 2011