National Campaign Committee For Central Legislation For Construction Labour (Ncccl) Coordinator Shri Subhash Bhatnagar vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Labour And Employment Labour Secretary

¬U 1

ITEM NO.302 COURT NO.10 SECTION PIL

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(Civil)No.318/2006

NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMTT., C.L., LABOUR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s)

(With appln.(s) for C/Delay and C/Delay in filing affidavit and exemption from filing O.T. and exemption from filing O.T. of annexures and extension of time and impleadment and permission to file additional documents and office report) (For Final Disposal)

WITH

CONMT.PET.(C) No.52/2013 in W.P.(C) No.318/2006

Date: 13/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Mr. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Varun K. Chopra, Adv.

Union of India Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG

For States of Signature Not Verified Andhra Pradesh Digitally signed by Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv. Sanjay Kumar Date: 2015.02.14 14:30:25 IST Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.

Reason:

Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. 2

Mr. Bharat Singh, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Gunwant Dara, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR

Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, AOR

Assam Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. Mr. Navnit Kumar, Adv. for M/s Corporate Law Group Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Chhattisgarh Mr. C.D. Singh, AAG

Ms. Damini Hajela, Adv. Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Giss Antony, Adv. Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv. Haryana Mrs. Nupur Choudhary, Adv. H.P. Mr. Suryanaryana Singh, AAG Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. Jharkhand Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. R.K. Ojha, Adv. Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. Kerala Ms. Bina Madhavan, AOR Karnataka Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. Lagnesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv. Madhya Pradesh Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Adv. Maharashtra Mrs. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv. Manipur Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv. Mizoram Mr. Pragyan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Heshu Kayina, Adv. Nagaland Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Orissa Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Parashar, Adv. 3 Punjab Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv. Rajasthan Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Sikkim Mr. A. Mariarputham, AAG Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Yusuf Khan, Adv. Mr. K. Vijay Kumar, Adv. M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. Tamil Nadu Mr. B. Balaji, AOR Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. R. Shase, Adv. Telangana Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv. Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR

• Uttar Pradesh Mr. V.K. Shukla, AAG Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, AOR
• Uttarakhand Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, Adv.
• A&N Islands Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Mrs. G. Indira, Adv.
• Puducherry Mr.V.G. Pragasam, AOR Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.
• Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
• Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR
• Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, AOR
• Mr. B. S. Banthia, AOR
• Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR
• Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR
• Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, AOR 4
• Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra, AOR Mrs. Nandini Gore, AOR Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. T. V. George, AOR Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR
• Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, AOR
• Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Learned Additional Solicitor General has shown us an affidavit which he proposes to file on behalf of the Union of India. He states that he will file this affidavit within two days from today.

We have gone through the affidavit and we are shocked at the figures that have been disclosed in the affidavit. By way of illustration, we may mention that the State of Maharashtra collected cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess 5 Act, 1996 (for short "the Cess Act") as follows: Year Cess collected Expenditure in crores incurred in crores for 17 schemes 2011-12 Rs.425.97 no figure supplied 2012-13 Rs.777.69 Rs.3.99 2013-14 Rs.788.60 Rs.53.34 There is absolutely no explanation as to what has happened to the balance amount which is more than Rs.1800 crores. Similarly, the State of Rajasthan collected cess under the Cess Act as follows: Year Cess collected Expenditure in crores incurred in crores for various schemes 2011-12 Rs.154.01 no figure supplied 2012-13 Rs.173.83 Rs.11.95 2013-14 Rs.251.95 Rs.25.93 Out of the total collection of about Rs.600 crores, the State of Rajasthan has utilized only about Rs.37 crores in running schemes for the welfare of construction workers. This is repeated in State after State. There appears to be no accountability with regard to the amounts that are collected under the Cess Act. Although the affidavit does not give a clear indication whether the CAG has audited the receipt and expenditure, learned Additional Solicitor General 6 submits that he will file an appropriate affidavit in this regard.

We also find that there is a multiplicity of schemes. These schemes may cater to several aspects relating to the welfare of construction workers. That is fair enough. Learned Additional Solicitor General will, however, inform us whether these schemes are being monitored by one authority or by a different authority for each scheme.

Our attention is also drawn to Section 60 of Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (for short "the Act') whereby a direction can be given by the Central Government to the State Government to implement welfare schemes for the benefit of construction workers. We expect the Union of India to take necessary steps in this regard in terms of Section 60 of the Act.

A detailed affidavit, indicating the status of the receipt and utilization of funds, the schemes that are being run by various State Governments/Union Territories, the number of officials involved in each scheme and whether each scheme has a different set of officials, should be filed in the form of a chart within four weeks by the Union of India.

A copy of the affidavit should be handed over to the learned Amicus Curiae before the same is filed in the 7

Registry of this Court.

Learned Amicus Curiae may obtain necessary information, as required, from the Central Government through the learned Additional Solicitor General and from the States/Union Territories through their respective Chief Secretary.

List the matter on 27th March, 2015.

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR)