The main legal point established in the judgment is that both owners and contractors are covered by the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulations of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (BOCW Act) and the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996, and are responsible for ensuring compliance with safety provisions.

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. This order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 4281, 6102, 7169, 11253/2008 and 8595/2009, as all the petitions involve common question as to coverage of the writ petitioners owner of establishment by the provisions of the Building and other Construction Workers (Regulations of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (BOCW Act) and the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996, Act.

2. In C.W.P. No. 6102/2008, seven complaints have been filed against petitioners No. 2 with the following allegations:

"(i) That the management is found running construction work of establishment with the aid of 325 workers. Hence the establishment is covered under Building and other Construction Workers Act, 1996. The management failed to show the proof of payment of Registration fee for getting certificate of registration in favour Chief Inspecter of Factories along with Form No. 1 (in triplicate) for running the building or construction work for the years 2007. This is violation of section/rules 7, 17, 18,21 of BOCW Act, 1996.

(ii) There are no fire extinguishers provided near four diesel generator working at different location in the establishment. This is violation of Section/Rules 40, 91 of BOCW Act, 1996.

(iii) The notice of commencement of building or Other construction work not submitted in Form No. 36. This is violation of section/rules 46.

(iv) That the hand rails not provided to stairs made for the Q.C. room. So there is every possibility of falling from height as workers are using them for going into QC room for construction work. This is violation of section/rules 40, 98 of BOCW Act, 1996.

(v) That the workers found working without suitable protective equipments for protection like welding cutting and grinding etc. This is violation of section/rules 40, 101 ofBOCW Act,1996.

(vi) That the fast moving coupling of the D.G. Set has not been properly guarded or fenced. This is violation of section/rules 40, 93 ofBOCW Act, 1996."

3. Quashing of the said complaint has been sought mainly on the ground that the establishment of the petitioner being covered by the Factories Act, 1948 could not be required to get registration under the BOCW Act. In support of this submission, sustenance is sought from the definition of "building other construction work" under Section 2(d) of the BOCW Act.

4. Case set out in the petition is that the petitioner is carrying out a project of the Food Corporation of India involving creating of integrated supply chain for food grain in the country. Under the project, facilities will be provided for receiving food grain at the Base deposis and transporting the same of the Filed Deposit in bulk wagons. The project was an infrastructure project and was directly 9 monitored by the Prime Ministers office. The petitioners received notice of implementation of the Act and advising them to apply for registration which was followed by Show Case Notice asking the petitioners to show cause why legal action be not taken for violation of provision of the Act. The petitioner put forward their reply to the effect that the construction actively undertaken by them was covered by the Factories Act, 1948 and was, thus, not covered by the BOCW Act. The petitioner also received notice as to liability of pay cess under the Cess Act to which also the stand of the petitioner, was that they were not covered by the said Act on the same ground. This was followed by filing of complaints mentioned above.

5. The respondents have contested the claim in the writ petition by submitting that the definition of expression "building and construction work" which excluded construction covered by the Factories Act was not determinative of applicability of BOCW Act and the Cess At. Even otherwise, the work of the petitioners was not covered by the Factories Act. The writ petitioners was premature as the petitioners will have full opportunity to put forward their defence before the concerned Court trying th