The court evaluates the involvement of the welfare board in legal proceedings concerning unjust enrichment, clarifying the necessity of establishing locus in absence of a direct contractual relationship.

ORDER :

1. This Court has heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The emphasis of argument is that the Board is having locus on the ground that the money which has taken by JUVNL, establishment by way of one per cent labour cess, has been transmitted in the account of Board for the purpose of welfare of labourers.

3. It has been contended that the said amount has been spent for welfare measure of the Labourers and as such, the same cannot be refunded, since, the amount has been spent.

4. The argument has been advanced on the principle of unjust enrichment.

5. This Court, after hearing the aforesaid argument, is of the view that:-

(i) The appellant is required to establish the locus to be of a necessary party merely because the amount has been transmitted in the account of Board. According to the Board, which has been spent for welfare of the labourers.

(ii) Whether the amount, if any, transmitted in the account of the Board, which has been deducted by the establishment, JUVNL without any authority, as per the proposition laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Limited & Anr. Vrs. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited & Anr., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 15 then merely because the amount has been deducted and transmitted in the account of the Board, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, can the principle of unjust enrichment will be applicable.

(iii) The JUVNL is accepting the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Limited (supra) since, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been challenged by the JUVNL and as such, in such circumstances, is it available with the Board to contest the case, even though, the Board is no where in any way in the transaction of money rather the same is in between the petitioner and the JUVNL.

(iv) The emphasis has been given of applicability of Section 72 of the Contract Act and as such, it requires consideration that how the Contract Act will be applicable when the Board is not a party in the Contract, said to be concluded one, rather, the party to the Contract, said to be concluded, is in between the writ petitioner and the JUVNL.

6. This Court has carved out the aforesaid issues of consideration so as to reach to the conclusion as to whether the Board is having any locus to contest the case claiming itself to be necessary party.

7. Further, if any amount has been transmitted in the account by any of the establishment under the head of ‘Labour Cess’ having no authority to deduct the said amount, can the litigant concerned be allowed to suffer merely because the said amount, as per the Board, has been spent.

8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that although, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued the matter by making reference of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Limited (supra) but, interaction with the Labour Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Jharkhand Building and Other Construction Worker Welfare Board is required in the present case.

9. Accordingly, the Labour Commissioner-cum- Chairman, Jharkhand Building and Other Construction Worker Welfare Board is to appear in-person along with relevant documents to assist the Court on the next date of hearing.

10. Let these matters be listed on 11.03.2025 as a first case.