Delhi High Court: The present appeal was filed against a judgment dated 23-2-2023 (‘impugned judgment’) passed by a Single Judge in Dulari Devi v. Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board, (‘Dulari Devi Case’), whereby the Single Judge had allowed the application submitted by Respondent 1’s husband for releasing his pension, which had earlier been rejected by appellant vide order dated 23-8-2022. The Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher* and Amit Bansal, JJ., dismissed the appeal and held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. The Court opined that the per mensem rate of pension, which was Rs 3000, was minuscule, given the cost of living in a city like Delhi. Thus, appellant, if deemed necessary, might have to find resources, including increasing the rate of levy of cess, to shore up funds to extend benefits to building workers.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The main issue before the Court was “whether the deceased, a building worker, was entitled to pension under the provisions of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (‘BOCW Act’) and the rules framed thereunder, i.e., the Delhi Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 (‘BOCW Rules’)?”.
The Court noted that the deceased registered with appellant in the first instance for three months, i.e., between 17-12-2007 and 17-3-2008, upon payment of requisite contribution. Appellant via order dated 23-8-2022, rejected the application made for the grant of pension on the ground that the deceased did not fulfil the eligibility criteria provided under Section 141(2) of the BOCW Act, i.e., since appellant was not registered with it as a beneficiary for three years immediately preceding the date when he completed 60 years of age, thus, he could not be considered for grant of pension. Appellant stated that it had power under Section 222(1)(b) for the grant of pension to beneficiaries who had completed 60 years of age was controlled by the eligibility criteria provided under Section 14(2) of the BOCW Act.
The Cout opined that the deceased was a building worker within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(1)(e) of the BOCW Act as the deceased was registered as a beneficiary by appellant between 17-12-2007 and 17-3-2008. Therefore, the deceased fulfilled the criteria for registration as a beneficiary, as prescribed under Section 12 of the BOCW Act, which provided that a building worker could register as a beneficiary under the BOCW Act if he was between 18 and 60 years of age and had been engaged in building or other construction work for not less than 90 days during the 12 months preceding the date when he applied for registration.
The Court observed that to avail the benefits provided under the BOCW Act, a building worker had to contribute to the fund constituted under Section 24 of the BOCW Act, maintained by the State Welfare Board. The Court noted that the deceased had deposited Rs 532 as his contribution for the period between 17-3-2008 and 16-10-2012. Therefore, on the date when the deceased reached the age of 60, he fulfilled, as per the record, the eligibility criteria concerning registration and crossing the threshold of 60 years of age to claim a pension from appellant.
The Court observed that Sections 22(1)(a) to 22(1)(g) of the BOCW Act invest in appellant, the power to accord specific benefits to registered beneficiaries such as, (i) assistance in the event of an accident; (ii) payment of pension to those who completed 60 years of age; (iii) sanction of loans and advances for construction of a house not exceeding such amount and such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed; (iv) payment of such amount in connection with premia for group insurance scheme, as may be deemed fit; (v) render financial assistance for education of children, as may be prescribed; (vi) meet expenses for treatment of medical ailments suffered by the beneficiary or such dependent, as may be prescribed; and (vii) accord monetary maternity benefit to female beneficiaries.
The Court opined that appellant was conferred with a specific power to grant pensions to beneficiaries who had reached 60 years of age. However, the BOCW Act did not provide eligibility criteria for the qualifying period for which the building worker should have worked before, he reached 60. The Court also opined that pension was one such specific benefit, provided in Section 22(1)(b), and could not be controlled by the eligibility criteria provided in Section 14(2).
The Court stated that the eligibility criteria concerning pensions were expressly provided in Rule 272 of BOCW Rules and the said provision, in no uncertain terms, stated that a member of the fund who was a building worker would be eligible for a pension on reaching 60 years of age if he had worked for a period of not less than one year. The Court opined that there was no provision in the BOCW Act which provided for a qualifying period, i.e., an eligibility period for availing pension by a building worker and the only provision concerning qualifying period/eligibility criteria, was found in Rule 272.
The Court noted that the deceased turned 60 on 1-1-2009 and thus opined that the order dated 23-8-2022 passed by appellant was contrary to the provisions of the BOCW Act and BOCW Rules. Thus, the Single Judge had rightly allowed the prayers made in Dulari Devi Case (supra).
The Court opined that appellant was duty-bound to extend benefits to building workers in line with the provisions of the BOCW Act, which was social welfare legislation. The object and purpose of the BOCW Act were not only to regulate employment and conditions of service for building workers but also to provide safety, health, and other welfare measures as might be deemed fit from time to time.
The Court opined that “the thrust of the BOCW Act is to provide succour to the unorganized labour force deployed in the building and construction industry. By any account, the per mensem rate of pension, which is Rs 3000, is minuscule, given the cost of living in a city like Delhi. Appellant, if deemed necessary, may have to find resources, including increasing the rate of levy of cess, to shore up funds to extend benefits to building workers. The financial burden that may befall appellant cannot form the basis for diluting the will of the legislature, which is reflected in the scheme of the BOCW Act and Rules”. Therefore, appellant’s submission that there would be a monthly financial burden of approximately Rs 510 crore on appellant, was rejected.
The Court thus dismissed the appeal and held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
[Delhi Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board v. Dulari Devi, LPA 372 of 2023, decided on 1-5-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Rajiv Shakdher
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Abhay Dixit, Akhilesh Dixit, Advocates
For the Respondents: Chirayu Jain, Urvi Mohan, Advocates
The post appeared first on .