Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Ramachandra Menon, J.

There is a common issue involved in both these appeals, though arising in respect of different cause of action and hence they are heard together. The basic issue is whether the amount due under Section 3 of the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 ('Cess Act' in short) can be collected from the subsequent purchaser of a building, giving an extended definition to the term `employer' (as defined under the relevant statute), who is liable to effect the contribution under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act?

5. The liability to satisfy 'cess' is under Section 3 of the 'Cess Act' and the extent of liability is to be not less than 1% of W.A.Nos.1802/2009 & 1060/2013 the total cost of construction incurred by the employer. Then the question is, who the 'employer' is? It is true that the term 'employer' has not been defined under the 'Cess Act'. But Section 2(d) of the said Act stipulates that, if the relevant term has not been defined in the 'Cess Act', but has been defined under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, such term shall have the same meaning as defined in the aforesaid Act. Section 2(1)(i) of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act defines the term 'employer' as follows;

On reading the above two provisions together, it is quite clear that the said provisions of the Act will be applicable to fix the contribution and the liability even upon an individual, in respect of the employees engaged for construction of the building; however drawing an exception in the case of an employee, if the building constructed is for 'residential purpose' and the total cost of construction is not more than 10,00,000/-.

7. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it is evident that the total sale consideration paid by the writ petitioner for purchasing the land and the building together, as revealed from Ext.P1 sale deed, is only 3,25,000/-; which is well within the limit of 10,00,000/- as mentioned in Section 2(1)(j) of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act. But an additional requirement is also to be satisfied, if at all any exemption is to be W.A.Nos.1802/2009 & 1060/2013 given, i.e., the building should be for 'residential purpose' of the employer. On going through the contents of Ext.P3 representation dated 1.1.2004 submitted by the writ petitioner before the concerned authorities, it is conceded by her that the building concerned, which was purchased by her, was a 'Tourist Home' (Enkeys Tourist Home). The factual position in this regard is conceded in paragraph 2 of the writ petition as well. This being the position, it is very much evident that, it was never a 'residential building' so as to have claimed any exemption in relation to the definition of the terms 'establishment' and 'employer' as defined under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(i) respectively of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act.

W.A.Nos.1802/2009 & 1060/2013

12. Coming to W.A.No.1060/2013, it is also a case involving purchase of property with the building. We do not find it necessary to ascertain the factual particulars as to whether the said building is a 'residential building' or a 'commercial building'; in so far as the total sale consideration paid by the appellant/writ petitioner who purchased the same was 75,00,000/- as given in Ext.P1 sale deed. No case was put up by the writ petitioner/appellant to the effect that the cost of construction was not more than 10,00,000/-. As such, the petitioner/appellant is not liable to have any exemption with reference to definition of the term 'employer' and 'establishment' as defined under Sections 2(1)(i) and 2(1)(j) of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, respectively. It is revealed from Ext.P1 sale deed that the building concerned is a "3-storied building", with 24 rooms with furniture, well, compound wall, kitchen, generator room, water pump, etc. This being the position, it is not a 'residential building' of the owner, to provide any instance of exemption to the owner, in terms of Section 2(j) of the Building W.A.Nos.1802/2009 & 1060/2013 and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, defining the term 'establishment'.