IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 50656 of 2025 E.I.H. LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Abhigya Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri V.S.Choudhary - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER Challenge made in the present petition is to the impugned order dated

29.04.2025 and the impugned show cause notice dated 16.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.2.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner East India Hotels Limited (E.I.H. Ltd.) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and existing under the Companies Act, 2013. The company is involved in providing hospitality services across India. The petitioner company commenced execution of a large scale hospitality construction project under the name 'Rajgarh Palace' at Tehsil Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur Madhya Pradesh. The project is being developed with the construction cost in excess of Rs.250,00,00,000/-. The Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 04.09.2024 amended the division of work. As per the said order, the Additional Labour Commissioner was designated as the Cess Assessment officer for works costing more than Rs.250,00,00,000/-. Thereafter, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Indore, Madhya Pradesh erroneously passed an order dated 29.04.2025 wherein after accepting the construction cost of Rs.307,00,00,000/-, the cess amount to be paid by the petitioner company was assessed as Rs.307,00,00,000/- at the rate of 1% under the provisions of Building and other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. It is submitted that order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner assessing and determining the cess liability of the petitioner/company is without jurisdiction on the ground that the competent authority to assess cess in projects wherein the construction cost exceeds Rs.250,00,00,000/- is the Additional Labour Commissioner and, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is unsustainable. It is submitted that the show cause notice dated 16.07.2025 was issued by the authority not vested with the jurisdiction, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. It is argued that the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner but the same is not efficacious remedy as the order impugned is passed by the authority without jurisdiction. Hence, this petition.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the appellate authority against the order impugned. Section 11 of the Building and other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 provides for a remedy to file an appeal against the impugned order. Section 11 reads as under :-

"11. Appeals.- (1) Any employer aggrieved by any within such time as may be prescribed, appeal to such appellate authority in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1)

shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.

(3) After the receipt of any appeal under sub-

Section (1), the appellate authority shall, after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard in the matter dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

(4) Every order passed in appeal under this section shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law."

6. The order impugned was passed on 29.04.2025 and the petitioner has not taken any steps to challenge the said order in appropriate proceedings. It is only when the notice was issued to the petitioner for recovery of the said amount, the petitioner has rushed to the Court. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. As