My friend is a construction contractor and currently holding a work order dated May 2014 to complete a construction work of two floors from a construction company. For this work order he had submitted the quotation in the month of January 2014.
He had quoated the labour rates without considering provident fund applicability to site workers/ casual labours;this was done in view of the stay order granted by High court on 8th September 1997 against the applicability of the provisions of the amended para 26 (ii) of the Employees Provident Fund Schemes 1952 to the temporary and casual construction site workers as per the writ petition no.2593/1997 filed by Builders association of India.
On 28/08/2014 in case of Builders Association Of India v/s Union Of India, Delhi High Court has given a judgement and has made Provident fund scheme applicable to temporary and casual site workers.
Now ,this construction company is withholding the payments of the contractor stating that he has to register under EPF Act. and then only they will release 20% of his labour payments.But the contractor has not been engaging labours more than 20, and the EPF Act is not applicable to him.
Questions:
1. Whether the construction company's stand is correct to withhold the labour payments of the work order which is dated before this new judgment of High court.?
2. Can the contractor get his 20% withheld money back by stating that the PF is not applicable to this work order now because the labour rates and work order were decided previous to this judgement?
From India, Pune
He had quoated the labour rates without considering provident fund applicability to site workers/ casual labours;this was done in view of the stay order granted by High court on 8th September 1997 against the applicability of the provisions of the amended para 26 (ii) of the Employees Provident Fund Schemes 1952 to the temporary and casual construction site workers as per the writ petition no.2593/1997 filed by Builders association of India.
On 28/08/2014 in case of Builders Association Of India v/s Union Of India, Delhi High Court has given a judgement and has made Provident fund scheme applicable to temporary and casual site workers.
Now ,this construction company is withholding the payments of the contractor stating that he has to register under EPF Act. and then only they will release 20% of his labour payments.But the contractor has not been engaging labours more than 20, and the EPF Act is not applicable to him.
Questions:
1. Whether the construction company's stand is correct to withhold the labour payments of the work order which is dated before this new judgment of High court.?
2. Can the contractor get his 20% withheld money back by stating that the PF is not applicable to this work order now because the labour rates and work order were decided previous to this judgement?
From India, Pune
Dear N Saroj,
I read your post carefully and completely. I read the entire matter of Builders Association Of India v/s Union Of India, Delhi High Court which is decided in August 2014.
You are a new member on this forum and you are representing your friend who is in building construction contracting. You have not mentioned the place of work of construction by your friend. From your profile I could get, you are a consultant from Pune, Maharashtra.
You have mentioned in your thread the matter of Builders association of India (writ petition no.2593/1997)HC Mumbai: Nagpur Bench but neither you nor your friend has up-date on it. This matter was decided in February 2006 vacating the stay order stated by you against the writ petitioners.
The matter between Builders Association Of India v/s Union Of India, Delhi High Court which is decided in August 2014, the judgment states that the action initiated by the respondents against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act is liable to be continued in accordance with law.
Under the circumstances, my answers to your questions are as under:
The stand of construction company i.e. PE is very much correct in withholding the bills of your friend irrespective of the date of work order.
The contractor i.e. your friend can not take any stand but to comply with the law. You can not say that the PF Law is not applicable to your / your friend's work order. You can not say that the labour rates and work order were decided previous to the judgement of Delhi HC even the work of you / your friend is carrying out in Delhi.
I need not to say at-least to you that ignorance of law is no excuse. You said that the rates were quoted in light of writ petition no.2593/1997 which is decided long back.
From India, Mumbai
2556I read your post carefully and completely. I read the entire matter of Builders Association Of India v/s Union Of India, Delhi High Court which is decided in August 2014.
You are a new member on this forum and you are representing your friend who is in building construction contracting. You have not mentioned the place of work of construction by your friend. From your profile I could get, you are a consultant from Pune, Maharashtra.
You have mentioned in your thread the matter of Builders association of India (writ petition no.2593/1997)HC Mumbai: Nagpur Bench but neither you nor your friend has up-date on it. This matter was decided in February 2006 vacating the stay order stated by you against the writ petitioners.
The matter between Builders Association Of India v/s Union Of India, Delhi High Court which is decided in August 2014, the judgment states that the action initiated by the respondents against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act is liable to be continued in accordance with law.
Under the circumstances, my answers to your questions are as under:
The stand of construction company i.e. PE is very much correct in withholding the bills of your friend irrespective of the date of work order.
The contractor i.e. your friend can not take any stand but to comply with the law. You can not say that the PF Law is not applicable to your / your friend's work order. You can not say that the labour rates and work order were decided previous to the judgement of Delhi HC even the work of you / your friend is carrying out in Delhi.
I need not to say at-least to you that ignorance of law is no excuse. You said that the rates were quoted in light of writ petition no.2593/1997 which is decided long back.
From India, Mumbai
1. Sir(s), the copy of judgment of the hon'ble high court as mentioned by the initiator of this thread has not been enclosed to examine the issue.
2. It is also not mentioned in the remarks whether the petititioner Builder Association of India has filed any appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or not. If so, what is the order of hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not been mentioned.
3. Further, I personally feel that in such like issues where the matters are being contested in the Higher Courts like High Court/Supreme Court, the seniors or experts have no scope of recording their opinion since the matter is examined in detail by the Hon'ble Courts. So far as I understand no court will ever pronounce any judgment against the law enacted by the legislature (in this case EPF & MP Act, 1952 as reported) until and unless the law under consideration is not challenged as violative to any provisions of Constitution of India. If no appeal has been filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court is required to be made to avoid levy of any penalty, interest or damages etc.
From India, Noida
2. It is also not mentioned in the remarks whether the petititioner Builder Association of India has filed any appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or not. If so, what is the order of hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not been mentioned.
3. Further, I personally feel that in such like issues where the matters are being contested in the Higher Courts like High Court/Supreme Court, the seniors or experts have no scope of recording their opinion since the matter is examined in detail by the Hon'ble Courts. So far as I understand no court will ever pronounce any judgment against the law enacted by the legislature (in this case EPF & MP Act, 1952 as reported) until and unless the law under consideration is not challenged as violative to any provisions of Constitution of India. If no appeal has been filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court is required to be made to avoid levy of any penalty, interest or damages etc.
From India, Noida
Dear Harsh Kumar ji, Please find the attachment of Judgement in Builders Association of India Vs UOI dated 28.08.2014 to examine the issue as you stated in your post.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Construction company's stand is correct even in view of Sandeep Dweller's case of Bombay HC referring to Apex court decision in Hari haran's case much prior to delhi High Court decision. The casual workers were engaged by contractors relating to regular business of construction company in that case and similar appears the position here notwithstanding the contractors engaged less than 20 persons. With regard to second question, the money cannot be taken back as the matter was subjudice and after final decision, all liabilities determined finally are related back at the inception of case. Here during interim orders also directions were given to implement the scheme with regard to those workers.
From India, New Delhi
From India, New Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Writ petition in APHC to be filed.doc
Order dated 21_10_2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016.pdf