HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 24463 OF 2009

O R D E R:

Challenging the letter dated 02.11.2007 of the 1^st respondent - Commissioner of Labour and the consequent notice dated 29.10.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent - Joint Commissioner of Labour, petitioner is before this Court.

2. The case of petitioner is that they awarded contract for construction of civil and structural works for passenger terminal building of GMR Hyderabad International Airport, Shamshabad to M/s Larson & Toubro Ltd. which is their major contractor. The contractor filed Application dated 19.11.2007 for registration under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation and Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the 1996 Act’). By proceedings dated 03.12.2007, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad registered the establishment of the contractor to engage 1500 contract labour for construction of passenger terminal building for GMR. However, the 1^st respondent vide impugned letter dated 02.11.2007, asked petitioner to register under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 and they are liable to pay cess at 1% of the cost of construction / estimated cost of construction for 2006-07 to remit the cess. Alleging non- compliance, the 2^nd respondent – Joint Commissioner issued notice dated 11.04.2008 as to why action should not be taken for not registering under the Act. Petitioner submitted response on 22.05.2008. The 1st respondent - Commissioner by letter dated 10.07.2008, directed petitioner to appear for a personal hearing on 27.06.2008.

2.1 Thereafter, having realised that petitioner is not liable or responsible under the Act, the 1^st respondent directed L&T to pay the cess by letter dated 21.07.2008. However, the 3^rd respondent without referring to the above-said letter dated 21.07.2008, by the impugned notice dated 29.10.2009 directed petitioner to pay cess at 1%. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. By order dated 13.11.2009, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to impugned letter dated 02.11.2007 and notice dated 29.10.2009, pending further orders.

4. In the counter filed by the 3^rd respondent, it is stated, Petitioner is undertaking construction of Air Port and its premises. It is stated that the main contention raised in the grounds mentioned in the affidavit is that M/s L&T Ltd., who was given the contract by Petitioner is the Employer and Petitioner is not the employer or establishment. In this regard it is stated that as per Section 2(i), employer in relation to an establishment means the owner thereof and includes contractor. Hence, the primary responsibility is on the owner of the establishment. As per Sec.2(c) Building worker means a person who is employed to do any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, in connection with any building or other construction work. In addition to the workers of various contractors, Petitioner also employed Supervisory, Technical and Clerical Staff who are covered by the definition of ‘building worker’, hence Petitioner is also covered by the definition of ‘establishment’. The averment that the Petitioner has not undertaken any building or construction work and has not employed the worker is false. The Petitioner has not come up with the details of the contractors other than L&T Ltd., who have executed various works like Control Tower, Electrical Installations, Roads and other works. They have also not furnished the details of their own employees who are discharging the duties of Supervisory, Technical and Clerical in respect of construction of the Air Field and other related works.

4.1. It is noticed from the records and affidavit in Writ Petitions No. 24041 of 2008 and 25919 of 2010 filed by Petitioner wherein they have mentioned that Central Government is not the appropriate Go