CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES TRADE UNION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the challenge is to Notification dated 01.10.2007 and 19.10.2007 issued by the respondent/M.P. Building & Other Construction Worker Welfare Board (for brevity "Board") in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 12 of the Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation Of Employment And Conditions Of Service) Act, 1996 [for brevity "1996 Act"]. Whereas the Notification No. dated 01/10/2007 published in M.P. Rajpatra (Extraordinary) dated 05.10.2007 is in respect of building workers engaged in building or other construction work in the area within jurisdiction of Panchayats. The Notification No.1032 dated 19.10.2007, published in M.P. Rajpatra (Extraordinary), dated 19.10.2007, relates to building workers engaged in building or other construction work in the urban area of Municipalities/Municipal Corporation. The grievance raised is against the introduction of class within class stipulating that such building workers who receive benefits like regular salary, ESI, Provident Fund, Gratuity are ineligible to be registered under the 1996 Act. The clause with which the petitioner is offended with is Clause 7 in both the notifications, which mandates:

(2.) It is urged that the building workers having been defined in the 1996 Act, which is a Central Act, the delegatee i.e. the Board cannot curtail the same by further classifying the building workers. It is urged that with arbitrary classification the building workers who are excluded from the category are deprived from being registered as a beneficiary. It is contended that after the issuance of Notification dated 01/10/2007 and 19.10.2007, new condition has emerged by separating building workers on the basis of the salary received by them. It is urged that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Board to introduce new qualification and declare the building workers disqualified from being registered as beneficiaries under Chapter V of 1996 Act, if they are recipients of social security.

(3.) The respondents, on their turn, have justified their action. It is urged that the stipulations contained in the notification, more particularly the disqualification Clause 7, is in consonance with the aims and objects of 1996 Act. The respondents have also raised the issue of delay.