ORDER:

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“...to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not revising the contract work rate of the petitioner by including 1% towards labour cess in respect of payments made after 26.06.2007 pertaining to works allotted to the petitioner by revising the estimates as per U.O.Note No.4763/PFS/F8(A1)/98-4, Finance (W&P) Department dated 28-02-2008 and in deducting 1% labour cess from out of the payments made and being made to the petitioner after 26-06-2007 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the respondents to include 1% towards labour cess for all the payments made to the petitioner after 26-06-2007 as per the said U.O.Note and also to forthwith release the amounts which were already recovered in this regard …”

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour, learned Government Pleader for Finance and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings that the point involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by the Composite High Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. Lakamsani Samba Siva Rao and others1 and prayed to pass similar orders. In the above decision, at para 29, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

“In the instant case, the contractors state that there is an agreement/contract between them and the companies under which they claim that the Companies, who are principal employer/owner of factory are not obliged to extend any benefit to the workers/employees of the contractors, since under the agreements/contracts the

1 2015 Law Suit (Hyd) 621

contractors had taken all responsibilities of their workers to pay/extend all the benefits including the benefits under the provisions of Act of 1948. It is not in dispute that workers/employees are not party to the agreement/contract. We are not unmindful of the fact that all contractors may not be M/s.Larsen & Tourbro, who may, in practice, take care of their workers or extend all benefits that they are entitled to and that their workers/employees may not have any grievance. But while dealing with the question of law, it would not be possible and proper to see who are the parties before the Court. In the present case, we are not going into the facts. Even learned single Judge did not deal with the facts of each case. To support the view, take a case of an ordinary contractor, who may enter into an agreement with the principal employer of the similar nature, as entered in the instant case, whereby principal employer would not have any responsibility to extend any benefits under Act of 1948 and at the same time, if the contractor also does not extend any benefits to his workers/employees as contemplated under the said Act, the workers/employees working in the premises of factory for construction or raising any building structures would stand deprived of the benefits of either of the Acts. In a given case, a contractor, like the one in the present case, behind the back of a company, may outsource labour for doing only civil work and if the sub-contractor is not extending any benefits to his workers, such workers also would stand excluded from the benefits of both the Acts. Contracting out of the beneficial provisions would thereby stand encouraged depriving workmen/employees for whose benefit Act of 1948 and Act Nos.27 and 28 were enacted and brought into force. In the circumstances, on this count also, the question framed by us deserves to be answered against the contractors.”

3. In view of the submissions made by both the counsel and the decision stated supra, this Writ Petition does not stand on merits, accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cos