JUDGMENT

Manmohan, A.C.J. (Oral)

C.M.No.8861/2024

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.2130/2024

3. Present Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent/Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as "Delhi BOCW Board") to revise its methodology/criteria used for categorising the workers' registration status under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996") as `current/live' and `lapsed/non-live' on the ground that the current methodology/criteria used by the Respondent is violative of Section 17 of the Act, 1996.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Section 17 of the Act, 1996 provides for one year window from the date when renewal becomes due as per Section 16 of the Act, 1996 to renew registrations to the building workers. According to him, it is only after the default has continued for a period of one year, can the registration status of a building worker be deemed to be `non-live/ceased/lapsed'. He, however, points out that the Respondent as of now, deems the registration status as `nonlive/ceased/lapsed" even if there is a delay of one day in renewing the registrations. In support of his contention, he refers to various orders (attached as Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent rejecting the claims of construction workers for benefits on the ground that their registration status was non-live/ceased/lapsed.

5. He submits that the interpretation adopted by the respondent is contrary to the judgments of this Court in Jai Pal v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, WP(C) 3001/2020; Rati Ram v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, WP(C) 9769/2021; and Anguri Devi v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, 2023:DHC:4183.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a worker can be given benefits under the Act, 1996 only if he has worked as a construction worker for ninety days in a year. In support of his submission, he relies upon Section 14(1) of the Act, which reads as under:

14. Cessation as a beneficiary. - (1) A building worker who has been registered as a beneficiary under this Act shall cease to be as such when he attains the age of sixty years or when he is not engaged in building or other construction work for not less than ninety days in a year:

Provided that in computing the period of ninety days under this sub-section, there shall be excluded any period of absence from the building or other construction work due to any personal injury cause to the building worker by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment."

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has handed over two charts mentioning details of all offline and online claims from 2015 to 21st February, 2024. The said two charts are reproduced hereinbelow:

S.NoName of DistrictsTotal Claims ReceivedSanctionedRejectedTemporary ClosedDeficiency MemoUnder Process1East76558370456612North-East12398568613716003North18431031448036404North-West7737455328216094458485West23211468218410201246South-West3354145690930859197South11234826625232308Central4827156009New-Delhi53110010South-East11ShahdraTOTAL1843510459127633902418892

All Offline Claim Details from 2015 to 21-02-2024

S. No.Name of DistrictsTotal ReceivedPending For ScrutinyScrutiny by DAObjection raised by DS/SOPending at DS/SOApproved by DS/SORejected/Cancelled1East562542725022North-East1148106944083North10401047430004North-West215531621584005West5321224102781200116South-West38713025617087007South797725311178Central103714029New-Delhi404220010South-East862000211Shahdra1711601600TOTAL15263321193857293142

All Online Claim Details from 2015 to 21-02-2024

8. Since the present case involves the interpretation of Section 17 of the Act, 1996, it is reproduced hereinbelow:

"17. Effect of non-payment of contribution.-When a ben

Click Here to Read the rest of this document