- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
National Campaign Co... v. Union Of India And O...
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ petition, filed in 2006 by the National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour, invoked Article 32 of the Constitution seeking effective implementation of two Parliamentary enactments meant to protect construction workers: (i) the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, and (ii) the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996. The petition alleged that most States and Union Territories had failed to constitute the required Welfare Boards, frame rules, collect cess, or disburse benefits to workers.
From 2008 to 2015 the Supreme Court, through a series of interim orders, monitored compliance, issued detailed directions, granted liberties to initiate contempt against defaulting States, and repeatedly required affidavits and personal appearances of senior officials. The Court’s oversight revealed massive under-utilisation of cess (about ₹27,000 crore nationwide) and persistent non-compliance by many States, prompting continuing mandamus and the threat of contempt and administrative repercussions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the States/Union Territories and the Union of India have complied with their statutory obligations under the 1996 Acts, including constitution of Welfare Boards, framing of rules, registration of workers, and collection and utilisation of welfare cess.
- What remedial directions or coercive measures should the Court issue to secure implementation of the Acts and proper utilisation of thousands of crores collected for workers’ welfare.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Most States have neither framed rules nor constituted State Advisory or Welfare Boards mandated by the Acts.
- Cess is either not collected at all or, where collected, is not transferred to Welfare Boards or used for workers’ benefit.
- The prolonged non-implementation warrants contempt proceedings against defaulting authorities.
Union of India / Respondents’ Submissions
- Affidavits submitted through the Additional Solicitor General disclosed shocking disparities between cess collected and amounts actually spent on welfare schemes (e.g., Maharashtra and Rajasthan figures highlighted in the orders of 13-2-2015).
- The Ministry of Labour indicated initiatives such as creation of a Universal Access Number (UAN) for portability of benefits and promised meetings with State Labour Secretaries to devise an implementation roadmap.
- Repeatedly sought time to file detailed affidavits, compile utilisation data, and coordinate with the Comptroller and Auditor General for auditing.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| National Campaign Committee v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 655 (order dated 18-1-2010 in the same proceedings) | Eleven specific directions to all States for constituting Welfare Boards, collecting and utilising cess, creating awareness, and auditing by CAG. | Treated as the benchmark order; subsequent interim orders assess State compliance with these directions and reiterate or expand them. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s analysis across the orders centres on the stark gap between statutory mandate and ground reality. Key aspects include:
- Compliance Monitoring: The Court ordered State Labour Secretaries to file reports (12-5-2008), required periodic affidavits, and authorised State-wise contempt motions (22-11-2010) when non-compliance persisted.
- Accountability for Funds: Detailed scrutiny of affidavits revealed enormous cess collections with negligible disbursement (illustrated by Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and NCT Delhi). The Court noted absence of explanations or audits and directed comprehensive utilisation charts.
- Escalating Coercive Measures: Threats of contempt against Chief Secretaries and possible adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports were recorded to galvanise bureaucratic response (orders of 21-3-2013, 4-9-2015).
- Central Coordination: Recognising fragmentation, the Court compelled the Union Ministry of Labour to convene meetings of State Labour Secretaries, exercise its power under Section 60 of the 1996 Act, and file an “action plan” (12-12-2014, 13-2-2015).
- Identification of Priority Areas: By 16-10-2015 the Court distilled five focus areas—maximising worker coverage, ensuring benefits reach workers, education of workers’ children, health/insurance coverage, and activation of State Advisory Boards—and demanded demonstrable progress.
Holding and Implications
Interim Holding: The Court directed the Union Secretary (Labour) and all State/UT Labour Departments to formulate and implement a concrete action plan addressing five priority areas, with a status report due by 15-1-2016; the matter was adjourned to 22-1-2016 for further monitoring.
Implications: Although not a final judgment, the continuing mandamus significantly heightens executive accountability, threatens contempt and administrative consequences for non-compliance, and underscores judicial commitment to safeguarding welfare funds exceeding ₹27,000 crore. No new legal precedent was created, but the orders reinforce the enforceability of statutory welfare obligations and the Court’s willingness to supervise prolonged executive inaction.
(2015) 17 SCC 164
Order dated 12-5-2008
(Before K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J. and R.V. Raveendran and Dr Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
1. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite the passing of the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, no steps have been taken either by the State Governments or their respective Labour Department in regard to constitution of State Advisory Committees, Expert Committees, etc. It is also submitted that many of the States have not even framed the Rules. It is submitted that cess is not being collected and even in States where some cess is collected, it is not being used for the purpose for which it is meant.
2. We, therefore, direct the Secretary of the Labour Department of each State to submit a detailed report within eight weeks as to what steps have been taken in this regard and the reasons for non-implementation of various provisions of the Act. Office will send a communication to the various Chief Secretaries/Labour Secretary of each State in regard to implementation of the provisions of this beneficial legislation.
3. List in August 2008.
(2015) 17 SCC 165(1)
Order dated 13-8-2010
(Before S.H. Kapadia, C.J. and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, J.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
4. On 18-1-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 655, this Court stipulated various measures required to be implemented by the States without further delay in the context of implementation of the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel submitted a chart which indicates the non-implementation of the order of this Court dated 18-1-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 655, in most of the States and in States where it has been implemented, the same is not satisfactory. Mr Vivek Tankha, learned Additional Solicitor General, will assist this Court as far as the implementation is concerned in the present matter.
5. The writ petition shall stand over for four weeks.
(2015) 17 SCC 165(2)
Order dated 22-11-2010
(Before S.H. Kapadia, C.J. and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
6. We give liberty to the petitioner to take out contempt motion State-wise, for non-implementation of the provisions of the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. The writ petition shall stand over for four weeks.
(2015) 17 SCC 165(3)
Order dated 21-3-2013
(Before Surinder Singh Nijjar and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with IA No. 10 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 41 of 2011 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with IA No. 10 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 42 of 2011 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with IA No. 10 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 43 of 2011 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with IA No. 10 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 44 of 2011 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 52 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
7. Heard Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner at length, and also perused the earlier orders passed by this Court and the emphatic directions issued. We have also perused Annexure F attached to Contempt Petition No. 52 of 2013. We are, prima facie, satisfied that the orders passed by this Court have not been complied with by any of the States/Union Territories in letter and spirit, although lip service has been paid to the same. We have no option but to issue notice to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against the Chief Secretary, Labour Secretary and the Chief Inspector in every State/Union Territory.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of individual State/Union Territory accepts notice. Let counter-affidavit be filed to the show-cause notice within a period of six weeks together with the latest status report by the individual State/Union Territory. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply copies of the contempt petition to the learned counsel for all the States/Union Territories. For the time being, the personal appearance of the respondents is exempted.
(2015) 17 SCC 166
Order dated 12-12-2014
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 52 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also Mr P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General. This case pertains to the implementation of the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 as well as the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996.
10. This Court has issued some directions from time to time, more particularly on 18-1-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 655, which read as follows: (National Campaign Committee case (2011) 4 SCC 655)
“1. The Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) came into force on 1-3-1996. In this petition filed under Article 32, the petitioner, National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour contends that many of the States and Union Territories have not effectively implemented the provisions of the said Act.
2. The object of the Act is to confer various benefits to the construction workers, like fixing hours for normal working days, weekly paid rest day, wages for overtime, basic welfare amenities at site, temporary living accommodation near site, safety and health measures, etc. Every State is required to constitute a State Welfare Board to provide assistance in case of accident, to provide pension, to sanction loans, to provide for group insurance, to provide financial assistance for educating children, medical treatment, etc. Though the Welfare Boards were to be constituted with adequate full-time staff, many States have not constituted the Welfare Boards. In some States, even though the Boards are constituted, they are not provided with necessary staff or facilities. As a result, welfare measures to benefit the workers are not been taken.
3. Section 3 of the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Cess Act’), provides for collection of cess from every employer at the rates prescribed, on the cost of construction incurred by an employer. We are told that many of the State Governments have collected the cess as contemplated under the Cess Act. But these amounts have not been passed on to the Welfare Boards to extend the benefits to the workers as contemplated by the Act. Even the registration of building workers as beneficiaries under the Act is not being taken up. Overall, the implementation of the provisions of the Act is far from satisfactory. There is an urgent need to extend the benefits of the Act to the unorganised section of building workers in a meaningful manner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the following measures require to be implemented by the States without further delay:
‘1. Welfare Boards have to be constituted by each State with adequate full-time staff within three months.
2. The Welfare Boards will have to meet at least once in two months or as specified in the rules, to discharge their statutory functions.
3. Awareness should be built up, about the registration of building workers and about the benefits available under the Act. There should be effective use of media, AIR and Doordarshan, for awareness programmes regarding the Act, the benefits available thereunder and procedures for availing the benefits.
4. Each State Government shall appoint registering officers and set up centres in each district to receive and register the applications and issue receipts for the applications.
5. Registered trade unions, legal service authorities and NGOs are to be encouraged to assist the workers to submit applications for registration and for seeking benefits.
6. All contracts with Governments shall require registration of workers under the Act and extension of benefits to such workers under the Act.
7. Steps to be taken to collect the cess under the Cess Act continuously.
8. The benefits under the Act have to be extended to the registered workers within a stipulated time-frame, preferably within six months.
9. The Member-Secretary of the Welfare Boards and the Labour Secretary shall be responsible for due implementation of the provisions of the Act. The Labour Ministry of each State shall carry out special drives to implement the provisions of the Act.
10. The CAG should audit the entire implementation of the Act and use of the funds.
11. All the Boards shall submit a comprehensive report as required under the Act and the Rules to the respective Government.’
5. The above directions shall be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretaries of all the States by sending copies of this order to ensure effective implementation. Responses and compliance reports shall be filed by the States within a period of twelve weeks. As this Act is enacted by Parliament, the Labour Ministry of the Government of India is also requested to explore the possibility of a national conference for implementation of the provisions of the Act.”
Subsequently, the matter was also considered on 10-9-2010 and some of the directions were reiterated.
11. The orders passed subsequently by this Court indicate that the implementation of both the statutes mentioned above is not being taken up with the deserved seriousness. In fact, it has been noticed in several orders passed by this Court that the Chief Secretaries of many of the States are in contempt of the orders passed by this Court.
12. Under the circumstances, we direct the Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India to convene a meeting of all the Secretaries in the Ministry of Labour or the corresponding Ministry of all the States and Union Territories on or before 16-1-2015 and to discuss with them the modalities for effective implementation of both the statutes and arrive at a consensus, particularly, since they involve the living conditions of the construction workers and collection of huge amounts for their benefit.
13. In the event no final conclusions are arrived at in the meeting to be chaired by the Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on or before 16-1-2015, other meetings may be held, but there must be some finality to the issues that have been raised in the writ petitions. Needless to say that the implementation of both the statutes mentioned above are of considerable importance and Mr P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General agrees that the matter needs to be taken up with promptitude and great seriousness.
14. We adjourn the matter to 13-2-2015 at 2.00 p.m., by which time we expect that the Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, the Secretaries in the Ministry of Labour or corresponding Ministry of various States and Union Territories will arrive at some consensus on the effective implementation of both the statutes mentioned above and present before us a document indicating the modalities on which they propose to proceed further.
15. It has been mentioned in the order dated 18-1-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 655, in Direction 10, that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) should audit the entire implementation of the Cess Act and use of the funds. No one is present on behalf of CAG even though an application (IA No. 10) was filed on 23-4-2012 seeking eight weeks' time to do the needful. There is nothing on record to suggest that the orders passed by this Court have been fully complied with by CAG.
16. Mr P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that he will be in touch with CAG and ensure that the order dated 18-1-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 655 is complied with.
17. We request Mr Vivek Tankha, learned Amicus Curiae to be present on the next date of hearing and assist us in the matter.
18. The writ petitions are adjourned to 13-2-2015 at 2.00 p.m. We expect our orders and directions to be complied with by that date.
(2015) 17 SCC 169
Order dated 13-2-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 52 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
19. The learned Additional Solicitor General has shown us an affidavit which he proposes to file on behalf of the Union of India. He states that he will file this affidavit within two days from today.
20. We have gone through the affidavit and we are shocked at the figures that have been disclosed in the affidavit. By way of illustration, we may mention that the State of Maharashtra collected cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (for short “the Cess Act”) as follows:
Year Cess collected in crores Expenditure incurred in crores for 17 schemes 2011-2012 Rs 425.97 no figure supplied 2012-2013 Rs 777.69 Rs 3.99 2013-2014 Rs 788.60 Rs 53.34
There is absolutely no explanation as to what has happened to the balance amount which is more than Rs 1800 crores.
21. Similarly, the State of Rajasthan collected cess under the Cess Act as follows:
Year Cess collected in crores Expenditure incurred in crores for various schemes 2011-2012 Rs 154.01 no figure supplied 2012-2013 Rs 173.83 Rs 11.95 2013-2014 Rs 251.95 Rs 25.93
Out of the total collection of about Rs 600 crores, the State of Rajasthan has utilised only about Rs 37 crores in running schemes for the welfare of construction workers.
22. This is repeated in State after State. There appears to be no accountability with regard to the amounts that are collected under the Cess Act. Although the affidavit does not give a clear indication whether the Comptroller and Auditor General has audited the receipt and expenditure, the learned Additional Solicitor General submits that he will file an appropriate affidavit in this regard.
23. We also find that there is a multiplicity of schemes. These schemes may cater to several aspects relating to the welfare of construction workers. That is fair enough. The learned Additional Solicitor General will, however, inform us whether these schemes are being monitored by one authority or by a different authority for each scheme.
24. Our attention is also drawn to Section 60 of the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) whereby a direction can be given by the Central Government to the State Government to implement welfare schemes for the benefit of construction workers. We expect the Union of India to take necessary steps in this regard in terms of Section 60 of the Act.
25. A detailed affidavit, indicating the status of the receipt and utilisation of funds, the schemes that are being run by various State Governments/Union Territories, the number of officials involved in each scheme and whether each scheme has a different set of officials, should be filed in the form of a chart within four weeks by the Union of India.
26. A copy of the affidavit should be handed over to the learned Amicus Curiae before the same is filed in the Registry of this Court. The learned Amicus Curiae may obtain necessary information, as required, from the Central Government through the learned Additional Solicitor General and from the States/Union Territories through their respective Chief Secretary.
27. List the matter on 27-3-2015.
(2015) 17 SCC 170
Order dated 27-3-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 52 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
28. We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Amicus Curiae for quite some time. We propose to take the matter of utilisation of funds by the States of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and the National Capital Territory of Delhi on the next date of hearing in regard to issues raised in the petition as also implementation of the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 and the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996.
29. The learned counsel for these States and the NCT of Delhi may give their written submissions to the learned Amicus Curiae within four weeks from today. List the matter on 1-5-2015 for arguments.
(2015) 17 SCC 171
Order dated 31-7-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 52 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
30. The learned Amicus Curiae has placed before us some shocking figures.
31. The State of Haryana has collected, over the years, a total amount of Rs 1314.86 crores under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”), but has disbursed only Rs 52 crores, the details of which are not available. Similarly, the State of Rajasthan has collected Rs 588.36 crores, but has disbursed only Rs 59.45 crores, the details of which are again not available. The State of Uttar Pradesh has collected Rs 1580.1 crores, but has disbursed Rs 180.79 crores, again the details of which are not available. Finally, the NCT of Delhi has collected Rs 1396.58 crores, but has disbursed Rs 39.37 crores and unintelligible details are made available.
32. The learned counsel for the NCT of Delhi has shown us some charts which do not explain anything at all, but are only a jumble of figures. But, we do find from these charts that there has been an enormous spurt in the expenditure in the years 2009-2010 (Rs 25.5 crores) and 2012-2013 (Rs 9.67 crores). In all the other years, the amount disbursed has been less than rupees one crore except in the year 2014-2015 when about Rs 1.8 crores have been disbursed. Other than that, we are not able to get any other assistance from the charts handed over to us in the Court today by the learned counsel for the NCT of Delhi. Considering the fact that such a huge amount of money is being collected and is not being utilised for the purpose for which it is collected, some drastic steps may have to be taken so that the amounts that are running into thousands of crores can be utilised for the benefit of the workers under the Act. We expect some proactive assistance and a positive response from the Ministry of Labour since we are told by the learned Amicus Curiae that the total amount involved is in the region of Rs 25,000 to Rs 30,000 crores all over the country.
33. The three States of Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and NCT of Delhi should file their submissions on affidavit with regard to collection and utilisation of the amounts and proposals for utilisation within two weeks from today and given the huge amounts involved, the Secretaries in the Department of Labour of these States and NCT of Delhi should remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
34. The miscellaneous applications (other than for impleadment) are disposed of. List the matter on 21-8-2015.
(2015) 17 SCC 172(1)
Order dated 21-8-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 52 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
35. We are extremely distressed on going through the affidavits filed which indicate that the State Governments/Union Territories have no clue what to do with the thousands of crores that have been collected under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. We also find from some of the affidavits that the amount is being used for purposes other than for what it was collected. This is particularly distressing since the learned Amicus Curiae states that the total amount collected in question is in the region of about Rs 27,000 crores.
36. Mr Yashank Adhyaru, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India will discuss the matter with the Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India and inform us what is proposed to be done with the amount collected. We had specifically mentioned this in our order dated 31-7-2015, but none of the affidavits indicate what is proposed to be done with this amount. If the State Governments/Union Territories and the Central Government are not in a position to utilise Rs 27,000 crores, it would be perhaps more appropriate not to collect this money since it is not being utilised for the benefit of the persons for whom it is collected, but for other purposes. We make it clear that the expenditure incurred by some of the State Governments/Union Territories, particularly NCT of Delhi on advertisements with the amount collected is not at all appropriate and the amount that has been spent by the NCT of Delhi and other Union Territories and States on advertisements should be returned to the accounts of the construction workers.
37. List the matter on 4-9-2015. Presence of the Secretaries in the Department of Labour for the States of Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and NCT of Delhi, as directed in our order dated 31-7-2015 is dispensed with for the time being.
(2015) 17 SCC 172(2)
Order dated 4-9-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 52 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
38. There does not seem to have been any progress made pursuant to our order dated 21-8-2015. Mr Yashank Adhyaru, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India says that he has not received any definite instructions in spite of the Central Agency having contacted the Ministry of Labour, Government of India.
39. The attitude of the Ministry of Labour can hardly be appreciated, particularly in view of the fact that the amounts involved are said to be in the region of about Rs 27,000 crores, as informed by the learned Amicus Curiae. In view of the fact that this matter is being dealt with in such a casual manner by the Union of India, we have no option but to require the presence of the Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on the next date of hearing. We, accordingly, direct the Secretary in the Ministry of Labour to be present in Court on 11-9-2015. The said Secretary will remain present in Court along with a possible action plan and after having fully briefed the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India.
40. We have already indicated in our earlier order dated 21-8-2015 that given the attitude of the State Governments/Union Territories and the Central Government, it may perhaps be more appropriate not to collect this money since it is not being utilised for the benefit of the persons for whom it is collected, but for other purposes. We had hoped that this observation will have some salutary effect on the officers of the State Governments/Union Territories and the Central Government, but obviously it has had absolutely no effect on the officers concerned.
41. Perhaps, we may have to take steps to devise some way of recording our displeasure, if necessary, in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the officers concerned. In view of the unfortunate and casual attitude of the Government of India and the State Governments and Union Territories in this regard, the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner have agreed to prepare, on their own, a possible action plan on the utilisation of the amount of about Rs 27,000 crores and any other further amounts that may have been collected under the statute.
42. List the matter on 11-9-2015.
(2015) 17 SCC 173
Order dated 11-9-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 52 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
43. Mr Shankar Aggarwal, Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India is present in Court and we have heard him for quite some time. We have also heard the learned Additional Solicitor General, learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr Aggarwal has informed us that certain steps have been taken to bring about Universal Access Number (UAN) so that if a construction worker shifts from one place to another or from one State to another, he/she does not lose his/her benefits and does not have to get registered afresh.
44. It is also stated that there are more than four crores construction workers, but only about 1.5 crores of them have registered themselves with the authorities concerned. He says that it is expected that registration of the construction workers will be completed before the end of this financial year.
45. Mr Aggarwal also says that some other steps have been taken to ensure that the benefits are passed on to the construction workers, such as, scholarship, skill development, etc. All this should be stated on affidavit by Mr Aggarwal. The affidavit should also state, in the form of a chart attached to the affidavit, whether the State Advisory Committees have been set up, the period of their existence and the meetings held by them in the last twelve months. Similar information will also be given with regard to the Central Advisory Committee. The affidavit will also indicate (in brief) the minutes of the meetings that have been held and referred to in Para 30 of the affidavit handed over to us in Court today. Finally, the affidavit will also state the progress and implementation of the orders passed by this Court on 18-1-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 655 and 12-12-2014.
46. The affidavit be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the petitioner have prepared some recommendations for an action plan for the effective utilisation of thousands of crores collected by the States/Union Territories. A copy of this has been handed over to Mr Shankar Aggarwal in Court today. He should have a look into the action plan and come out with a detailed plan on the subject of utilisation of the funds available. The Registry should not accept any affidavits other than those filed by the Union of India, or under our specific directions. List the matter on 16-10-2015.
(2015) 17 SCC 174
Order dated 16-10-2015
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
WP (C) No. 318 of 2006 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 52 of 2013 in WP (C) No. 318 of 2006
47. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties including Mr Shankar Aggarwal, Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. We have also gone through the affidavit filed by Mr Shankar Aggarwal on 9-10-2015 and the additional affidavit handed over to us in Court today. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the respondents do not need the approval of this Court for going ahead in any of their schemes. Apart from that, during the course of discussions, it has come out that there are five key areas on which the Central Government needs to concentrate for the time being. These are:
(i) to ensure maximum coverage of the building and other construction workers;
(ii) to ensure distribution of benefits and implementation of the schemes that are in existence for the benefit of the building and other construction workers;
(iii) to lay greater emphasis on education and provide educational facilities to the children of the building and other construction workers;
(iv) to provide health benefits and insurance of the building and other construction workers and their families;
(v) to activate the State Advisory Boards which, as per the affidavit, have not even met in the last several years.
48. Mr Shankar Aggarwal assures us that necessary steps will be taken in this regard with due promptitude and diligence. He assures us that some positive results will be shown on or before the next date of hearing. Under the circumstances, we adjourn the matters to 22-1-2016. The status report may be filed not later than 15-1-2016 with a copy to the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the petitioner.
49. Needless to say, we expect the State Governments and the Union Territories to assist the Central Government in the implementation of 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.
Court Masters
Alert