- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
National Campaign Co... v. Union Of India And O...
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, a public interest organisation, invoked Article 32 of the Constitution in 2006 (WP No. 318 of 2006) seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the Union of India and all 36 States/Union Territories to implement in full the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996. The petition specifically sought constitution of State Welfare Boards, appointment of registering officers, levy and collection of cess, and extension of statutory welfare benefits to construction workers.
After issuing notice on 28-7-2006, the Supreme Court passed a series of compliance orders between 2008 and 2010 directing timely implementation of both Acts. Persisting non-compliance led the petitioner to file (i) IA No. 6 of 2011—placing updated compliance charts on record, and (ii) Contempt Petitions Nos. 42 and 43 of 2011—alleging wilful disobedience of earlier Court directions by several States/UTs and the Union of India. The present order disposes of IA No. 6 and issues directions in the two contempt petitions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent States/Union Territories and the Union of India have complied with their statutory obligations under the two 1996 enactments and with the Supreme Court’s earlier implementation directions.
- Whether their continued default constitutes wilful disobedience warranting initiation of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour v. Union of India, (2009) 3 SCC 269 (order dated 13-1-2009) | Directed Chief Secretaries and Labour Secretaries of all States/UTs to take steps required by the 1996 Acts and to file appraisal reports. | Recalled to demonstrate earlier unequivocal directions that remain largely unfulfilled. |
| National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 655 (order dated 18-1-2010) | Issued eleven specific directions, including constitution of Welfare Boards, regular Board meetings, worker registration, cess collection, media awareness, and CAG audit. | Cited to show that the respondents had clear, detailed mandates which they have failed to honour. |
| National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 653 (order dated 10-9-2010) | Required the Central Government to issue directions under Section 60 of the 1996 Act and to file a status report on the work of the Central Advisory Committee. | Referenced to highlight continued inertia by the Central Government despite prior Court admonitions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the latest status reports and affidavits and found admitted non-compliance with both statutory mandates and judicial directions:
- Several jurisdictions—specifically Lakshadweep, Meghalaya and Nagaland—had not even constituted State Welfare Boards under Section 18.
- Uttar Pradesh constituted a one-member Board, falling short of the statutory minimum of three members.
- No workers were registered in Assam, Mizoram, Sikkim, and Jammu & Kashmir; cess collection was either negligible or undistributed.
- The Central Government had not exercised its Section 60 power to issue binding directions despite earlier Court admonitions.
The Court concluded that the respondents have “for a considerable period” both (a) wilfully disobeyed multiple specific orders of the Supreme Court, and (b) failed to discharge non-discretionary statutory duties. Given the sustained nature of default, the Court deemed it necessary to invoke contempt jurisdiction to secure compliance.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court issued notices to all respondents in Contempt Petitions Nos. 42 and 43 of 2011 to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated, and directed the personal appearance of specified senior officers (Labour Secretaries of the Union of India, Lakshadweep, Meghalaya, Nagaland, and the Director General of Inspection) on the next date of hearing (four weeks hence).
Implications: The order advances enforcement of welfare legislation by leveraging contempt powers to compel high-level accountability. Immediate consequences include mandatory personal attendance of key officials and the possibility of contempt sanctions, thereby increasing pressure on defaulting governments to implement the Acts. The order, however, does not establish new legal doctrine; its effect is case-specific enforcement of existing statutory and judicial mandates.
Order
1. By this common order, we shall deal with IA No. 6 in WP No. 318 of 2006 and Contempt Petitions Nos. 42 and 43 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 implement the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation 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.
2. 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 28-7-2006 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.
3. Vide order dated 12-5-2008, 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 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 a detailed order by this Court dated 13-1-2009 (2009) 3 SCC 269. 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 of the Act.
4. 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: (National Campaign Committee case (2009) 3 SCC 269)
“9. We direct the Chief Secretaries of the respective States and Secretary (Labour) of each State 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 unorganised workers of the construction sector will be denied the benefit of the Act.”
5. The Court thereafter passed various orders and directions requiring the respective States to implement the provisions of the Act. Vide order dated 18-1-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 655, the Court noticed the object of the Act as well 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 the 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.
6. Further, noticing the persisting default, the Court passed an order dated 10-9-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 653 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 18-1-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 655. 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 the 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 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 22-11-2010, to take out contempt motion Statewise.
7. The petitioner filed IA No. 6 of 2011 on 5-1-2011 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.
8. The petitioner then filed Contempt Petitions Nos. 42 and 43 of 2011. In Contempt Petition No. 42 of 2011, the petitioner has averred that Respondents 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, the Government of the State of Meghalaya, the 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.
9. Contempt Petition No. 43 of 2011 has been filed primarily on the ground that the respondents in that petition had wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court, particularly the order dated 18-1-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 655 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. The defaulters in this regard are the States of Maharashtra, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur and the Union Territories of Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Chandigarh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 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.
10. 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 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.
11. 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 authorised 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.
12. 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 consequences as well as interest has to be paid on delayed payment of cess. The offences committed by the company and other defaulters are punishable under the provisions of the Cess Act.
13. 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 applications/petitions, subject-matter of the present order, are supported by affidavit filed by the coordinator of the petitioner organisation. A number of States, particularly the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and the 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 applications/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.
14. In this manner and for a considerable period, the respondents in these applications/petitions have, on the one hand disobeyed the orders of this Court particularly the orders dated 18-1-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 655, 13-8-2010 and 10-9-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 653, 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.
15. In the circumstances aforereferred, 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 Petitions 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,
Shram Shakti Bhavan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Labour Secretary, Lakshadweep,
UT of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti 682 555.
3. The Labour Secretary, Meghalaya,
Government of Meghalaya,
Department of Labour,
Rilang Building,
Shillong 793 001.
4. The Labour Secretary, Nagaland,
Government of Nagaland,
Department of Labour,
Civil Secretariat,
Kohima 797 001.
5. The Director General of Inspection,
Government of India,
Mansingh Road,
New Delhi 110 011.
16. With the above orders, we direct these applications/petitions to be listed after four weeks. Notice to all the respondents returnable on the same date.
Alert