Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Mr.S.Rajan, learned counsel for the contractors in W.A.Nos.60, 62, 71 and 94 of 2015, WASR No.165064 of 2014 and WA(SR) No.14663 of 2015, submitted that in W.A.Nos.62, 71 and 94 of 2015, services of the contractors were availed by the companies for designing, manufacturing, supply of plant, machinery and equipment including commissioning spares and insurance, spares of Double Girder EOT Cranes (for short Cranes) for Wire Rod Mill and for this purpose a separate agreement was executed between them and the company. He, therefore, submitted that in any case, the cost involved therein cannot be treated as value of the contract for construction of building and other works and make the contractors to pay 1% cess thereon. He submitted that the contractors also entered into a separate agreement for construction, erection, testing, commissioning and performance test of plant, machinery, equipment including supervision of services, insurance and training of VSPs personnel of VSPs tender of Double Girder EOT Cranes for Wire Rod Mill. He submitted that if this Court takes a view that the construction work, under the second agreement, is attracted by the definition of building and other construction works, the Commissioner can, at the most, direct them to pay 1% cess on the value of that work only under the provisions of Act No.28. All other learned Advocates for the contractors, adopted the submissions advanced by Mr.C.R.Sridharan, learned senior counsel for the contractors.

14. That takes us to consider the provisions contained in Section 2(d) of Act No.27 and address the questions raised, in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and judgments relied upon in support of the interpretation given by them in the course of arguments. At the outset, we would like to consider the question whether construction of blast furnace or cranes would amount to construction of a building as defined under Section 2 (d) of Act No.27?.

14.1 The definition of building or other construction work states what does that exactly mean. It means the construction, alteration, repairs, maintenance or demolition, of or, in relation to buildings and several other structures/constructions such as streets, roads, tramways etc., but does not include any building or other construction work to which the provisions of Act of 1948 apply. It is true that the provision itself provides a dictionary for the type of other construction works, and, therefore, the question is whether blast furnace can be treated as building or other construction work. Insofar as the word building in this expression is concerned, it was argued on behalf of the contractors that it means a structure having walls, ceiling, flooring, windows etc. and in view thereof by no stretch of imagination blast furnace or cranes could be treated as building or called a building. Insofar as the other construction works as stipulated in the definition are concerned, it was submitted that the definition does not include blast furnace or cranes nor the appropriate Government, by notification, has included it in the definition. We would, therefore, like to consider whether blast furnace or cranes are covered by the definition of building or other construction works in particular by the word building therein?

15. Insofar as cranes are concerned, in three Writ Appeals (W.A.Nos.62, 71 and 94 of 2015) two separate agreements were executed between the contractors and companies-principal employer. Out of which, three agreements each were for construction and three agreements were for supplying of all plant machinery and equipment. Thus, both the agreements together were for supply, construction and commissioning plant i.e. Cranes for Wire Rod Mill. Technically, learned counsel appearing for the contractors in these appeals, may be right in submitting that the contracts for supply of plant machinery cannot be taken into account for directing the appellants or the companies to pay/deduct 1% cess under the provisions of Act No.28. We, therefore, with the assistance of learned counsel for the contractors tried to understand the exact nature of these agreements and the work undertaken by them thereunder. Though two separate agreements were executed, the work that was undertaken by the contractors cannot be separated. It was like a composite contract for construction/erection and commissioning of the plant. If the argument, such as advanced by learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals, is accepted that will defeat the very object of Act Nos.27 and 28. In every construction work/activity, the contractors and/or the principal employer would execute two agreements, one for supply of materials and the other for construction/erection of buildings such as blast furnace and cranes. The expression the cost of construction as employed in Section 3(1) of Act No.28, in our opinion, would mean the entire cost incurred for construction of a building, such as crane or blast furnace, since its construction and erection cannot be separated. It was a composite contract for construction/erection of crane with material. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in these three appeals must be rejected.

23. In view of the scheme of Act No.27 and Act No.28, in the present case, the Commissioner had issued directions to the principal employer i.e., Companies to deduct 1% of amount payable to the contractors and remit the same to the Government towards cess payable under Act No.28.

24. In the present case, admittedly the workers, employed/engaged by the contractors for construction of blast furnace/cranes, are not covered by Act of 1948. Mr.C.R.Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel, in response to our specific query, submitted that the workers/employees engaged for erection/construction of blast furnace/cranes, within the factory premises of companies, are not covered by the provisions of Act of 1948, in view of the contracts/agreements executed between the companies and the contractors. He submitted that the contractors had taken all responsibilities such as extending benefits to its workers/employees including the benefits contemplated under Act of 1948. In view thereof, in our firm opinion, it cannot be stated that the provisions of Act of 1948 would apply to blast furnace/cranes constructed by the contractors within the factory premises. The expression but does not include any building or other construction work to which the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), or the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952), apply used in the definition of building or other construction work would have to be read to mean the workers engaged/employed for construction of the buildings to which Act of 1948 apply. In other words, the expression building or other construction work would not include the workers, engaged/employed for construction of any building or other construction work, to which the provisions of Act of 1948 apply. Thus, in our opinion, from the facts of a case, if it is clear that the workers engaged/employed for construction of any building or other construction work within the premises of the factory are covered or entitled for the benefits under Act of 1948, such employees alone would stand excluded from the purview of Act No.27, and consequently Act No.28, not otherwise.