Sandeep Sharma, J
1. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:
“It is therefore, prayed that this petition may be allowed, the impugned orders, i.e. Annexure P-1, P-4, and P-5, passed by respondents No. 2 and 3, may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to release the post death benefits of Smt. Amro Devi (deceased), mother of the petitioner, to the petitioner. The respondents may also be directed to reimburse the medical expenses, incurred by the petitioner for treatment of the deceased, as per provisions of Section 22 (1) (f) of the Act.”
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that late Smt. Amro Devi i.e. mother of the petitioner was registered as a building worker vide Registration No. BOCW/LO/KNG/06/2784/13 under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service, Act, 1996 (hereinafter “Act”). Though w.e.f. year 2013 aforesaid person had been regularly rendering her services as a building worker, but subsequently in the year 2016, she stopped working as a building worker on account of her having contacted serious disease i.e. cancer. On account of aforesaid disease, Smt. Amro Devi died on 23.09.2017. Petitioner herein being son of aforesaid person filed an application in the month of March, 2018, seeking therein payment on account of funeral assistance and death benefit in terms of Rules 277 and 278 of Himachal Pradesh Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter “Rules”), however, afore prayer of him came to be rejected vide communication dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) on the pretext that alongwith application, as detailed hereinabove, petitioner herein has failed to annex certificate, thereby showing that deceased worker had worked for not less than 90 days in the previous year i.e. 2017. Petitioner herein represented against aforesaid decision of Authorized Officer-cum-Labour Officer vide communication dated 17.11.2018 (Annexure P-2), stating therein that since deceased worker was unable to work on account of having contacted serious disease, claim put forth by him cannot be rejected for want of certificate of continuity of service. However afore representation was rejected vide impugned order dated 22.04.2019.
3. To substantiate the factum of disease suffered by late Smt. Amro Devi, petitioner also placed on record certificate dated 29.10.2018 issued by the Secretary Gram Panchayat Gharna, wherein it came to be reported that deceased Smt. Amro Devi expired on 23.09.2018 and she was unable to render her services as a building worker on account of her having contacted serious disease of cancer (Annexure P-3). Besides above, petitioner herein has also adduced on record discharge slip issued by the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, suggestive of the fact that on account of cancer, deceased Smt. Amro Devi was under constant treatment. Since despite there being aforesaid documents adduced on record, claim put forth by the petitioner herein came to be rejected, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the relief as reproduced hereinabove.
4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed reply under the signatures of Secretary-cum-Chief Executive Officer, HP Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Shimla, HP, wherein factum with regard to registration of deceased Smt. Amro Devi as a building worker under the Act is not disputed, rather attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since deceased Smt. Amro Devi had ceased to be beneficiary in terms of Section 14 of the Act prior to her death in year 2017, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the appropriate authority, while rejecting the application filed by the legal representative of deceased Smt. Amro Devi.
5. While making this Court peruse aforesaid provision of law, Mr. Rohan Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent-board, vehemently argued that though in terms of aforesaid provision of law, building worker ceased to be beneficiary under the Act on his/her attaining the age of sixty years or when he/she is not engaged in building or other construction work for not less than ninety days in a year, but in the case at hand, even if it is presumed that deceased Smt. Amro Devi had not ceased to be beneficiary under the Act, petitioner herein being legal representative of deceased was under obligation to place on record certificate suggestive of the fact that deceased was engaged in building or other construction work for not less than ninety days in a year, which he failed to do so.
6. To the contrary, Mr. Bhag Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, while refuting the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the respondent-Board, strenuously argued that proviso 2 of aforesaid provision of law itself suggests that if a person had been a beneficiary for at least three years continuously immediately before attaining the age of sixty years, he shall be eligible to get such benefits as may be prescribed. He submitted that since it is not in dispute that deceased Smt. Amro Devi was registered as a building worker in the year 2013 and she kept on working as a building worker till 2016, petitioner herein is eligible to get benefit as per Rules 277 and 278 of the Rules.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that mother of the petitioner Smt. Amro Devi was admittedly registered as a building worker vide Registration No. BOCW/LO/KNG/06/2784/13 and petitioner herein is her son and nominee. There is nothing on record to suggest that registration of deceased, Smt. Amro Devi done in the year 2013, had expired prior to her death on 23.09.2017, meaning thereby at the time of her death, she continued to be registered under the Act. As per Section 14 of the Act, a building Worker, who has been registered as a beneficiary under this Act shall cease to be as such when he attains the age of sixty years or when he is not engaged in building or other construction work for not less than ninety days in a year. Admittedly, in the case at hand, deceased Smt. Amro Devi had not attained the age of sixty years and similarly, there is nothing to demonstrate that she had stopped rendering her services as a building worker before her death in the year 2017. Though, Mr. Rohan Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent-Board, while inviting attention of this Court to certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Gharna (Annexure P-3), attempted to argue that deceased Smt. Amro Devi had stopped working after August, 2018, but such submission of him may not be sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioner because as per aforesaid certificate issued by the Secretary Gram Panchayat on 29.10.2018, deceased Smt. Amro Devi had stopped rendering her services as a building worker for the last two years w.e.f 29.10.2016. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Section 14 of the Act, which reads as under:
14. Cessation as a beneficiary.
(1) A building worker who has been registered as a beneficiary under this Act shall cease. to be as such when he attains the age of sixty years or when he is not engaged in building or other construction work for not less than ninety days in a year:
Provided that in computing the period of ninety days under this sub- section, there shall be excluded any period of absence from the building or other construction work due to any personal injury caused to the building worker by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), if a person had been a beneficiary for at least three years continuously immediately before attaining the age of sixty years, he shall be eligible to get such benefits as may be prescribed.
8. If the Section 14 (2) of the Act is read in its entirety, it clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), if a person had been a beneficiary for at least three years continuously immediately before attaining the age of sixty years, he shall be eligible to get such benefits as may be prescribed. Admittedly, in the case at hand, claim of the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground that late Smt. Amro Devi had attained the age of sixty years, but the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he has failed to furnish certificate suggestive of the fact that deceased was engaged as a building worker for not less than ninety days in a year. However, in the case at hand, petitioner herein was not required to furnish afore certificate, as sought for, for the reason that deceased Smt. Amro Devi had been a beneficiary under the Act for at least three years continuously immediately before her death on 23.09.2017. Though, Mr. Rohan Tomar, while referring to certificate dated 29.10.2018 issued by the Secretary Gram Panchayat Gharna, strenuously argued that deceased Smt. Amro Devi had stopped working in year 2015, if it is so, petitioner cannot be granted benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act, however, careful perusal of certificate dated 29.10.2018 if read in its entirety, nowhere suggests that deceased Smt. Amro Devi had actually not worked till 23.09.2017, rather afore certificate suggests that on account of her having contacted serious disease i.e. cancer, deceased was unable to work. There is no definite certification, if any, in the afore certificate that prior to her death in year 2017 deceased Smt. Amro Devi had stopped working. There is nothing cogent on record to refute the claim put-forth by the petitioner that deceased Smt. Amro Devi continued to be registered as beneficiary under the Act till her death on 23.092017, if it is so, benefit as claimed by the petitioner in terms of Rules 277 and 278 of the Rules, deserves to be allowed.
9. It is not in dispute that in exercise of power conferred under Section 62 and 40 of the Act, Government of Himachal Pradesh has made rules, wherein under Rules 277 and 278 of the Rules, specific provisions have been made with regard to payment of funeral assistance and payment of death benefit. Afore rules came to be amended in the year 2018 and 2020.
10. If the aforesaid amended rules are read in conjunction, it nowhere suggests that payment of funeral assistance and payment of death benefit, if any, depends upon production certificate of continuity of service, rather as per aforesaid rules, board shall sanction amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the nominee dependent upon the deceased towards funeral expenses and sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards death benefit. If the death is due to an accident during the course of employment, nominee dependent of the deceased shall be given Rs. 50,000/-towards death benefits, provided the death is certified by a doctor. However, in the instant case, death is not during the course of employment, rather deceased was died on account of cancer and as such, petitioner herein being legal representative of Smt. Amro Devi deserves to be sanctioned amount under aforesaid rules without there being any stipulation. Needless to say, Act is beneficial legislation and as such, its intent needs to be given effect to. Interpretation of beneficial legislation should be in a manner to benefit the welfare of building and other construction workers and any contrary interpretation should be avoided. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 6578 of 2023 titled as Sita Devi Vs. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board. Relevant paras of the afore judgment reads as under:
“12. The BOCW Act is a social welfare measure enacted for the benefit of unorganized labour in India where jobs are temporary and working hours are uncertain. The basic amenities and welfare facilities provided to these workers are inadequate. The work is characterized by its casual nature, temporary relationship between employer and employee, uncertain working hours, lack of basic amenities and inadequacy of welfare facilities. It was enacted keeping in mind the socioeconomic realities of the intended beneficiaries - the construction workers - aiming to tackle both administrative and bureaucratic hurdles faced by them on account of lack of knowledge and lack of access to professional resources.
12.1 The intention of the legislature was not to punish or deprive the worker who failed to renew his/her registration but to provide a remedy to enable the worker to overcome the difficulties caused by non-renewal. Section 17 of the BOCW Act is one such remedial provision. The proviso to Section 17 of the BOCW Act thus states that where there are reasonable grounds for non-payment and the worker deposits the arrears, the delay can be condoned and the registration restored. It reads as under:
"17. Effect of non-payment of contribution - When a beneficiary has not paid his contribution under sub-section (1) of section 16 for a continuous period of not less than one year, he shall cease to be a beneficiary:
Provided that if the Secretary of the Board is satisfied that the non- payment of contribution was for a reasonable ground and that the building worker is willing to deposit the arrears, he may allow the building worker to deposit the contribution in arrears and on such deposit being made, the registration of building worker shall stand restored."
13. It is no longer res integra that a beneficial legislation must be construed liberally and interpreted in a manner that advances its purpose so as to fructify the legislative intent. The Supreme Court in Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn. And Anr.6 held that a beneficial legislation must be construed in a correct perspective and where two views are possible on its applicability, a view which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred. The relevant extract is reproduced below:
"27. Before parting with the discussion on this point, it is necessary to keep in view the salient fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. It is enacted with a view to ensuring social welfare and for providing safe insurance cover to employees who were likely to suffer from various physical illnesses during the course of their employment. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying its enactment. When two views are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it. It is difficult to appreciate how it could be contended by the appellant with any emphasis that an employee working at its head office in Secunderabad would be governed by the beneficial sweep of the Act as admittedly the head office employees are covered by the Act, but once such an employee, whether working on the administrative side or connected with the actual transportation of goods, if transferred to the Bombay branch even with his consent, cannot be governed by the beneficial provisions of the Act..."
[Emphasis supplied]
14. In Builders Association of India and Anr. v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr.7, while upholding the Constitutionality of the BOCW Act, a (2000) 1 SCC 332 2007 SCC OnLine Del 327 : ILR (2007) 1 Del 1143 Division Bench of this Court held that the Act is a beneficial legislation aimed towards the welfare of building and other construction workers. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as:
"5.8 The scheme of the BOCW Act indicates that the central focus of this statute is the building and construction worker and the welfare of such worker. Clearly the BOCW Act belongs to the genre of labour welfare legislation relatable to Articles 39(e) , 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [1984] 2 SCR 67 explained that such legislation would be straightaway enforceable under Article 21 which enshrines the right to human dignity. It was explained that (SCC p.184):"where legislation is already enacted by the State providing these basic requirements to the workmen and thus investing their right to live with basic human dignity, with concrete reality and content, the State can certainly be obligated to ensure observance of such legislation for inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21.
5.9. The BOCW Act envisages a network of authorities at the Central and State levels to ensure that the benefit of the legislation is made available to every building worker. The provisions concerning registration of workers, providing them with identity cards, constitution of Welfare Boards and registration of beneficiaries under the Fund, providing for augmentation of the Fund and specifying the purposes for which the Fund will be used, providing for the safety and health of the worker, making the contravention of the provisions of the statute punishable and entailing penalties for the violator all go to emphasise the primary purpose of the BOCW Act , which is the welfare of the building and construction worker. These aspects of the BOCW Act are sought to be supplemented in considerable measure by the making of the Central Rules in 1998. Detailed rules have been made with regards to particular aspects of safety in construction work and for the health and welfare of the workers."
[Emphasis supplied] 14.1 It was further held that the interpretation of the provisions of the BOCW Act should be in a manner to benefit the welfare of building and other construction workers, and any contrary interpretation would have to be avoided.
11. Consequently, in view of above detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed and impugned orders i.e. Annexure P-1, P-4 and P-5 are quashed and set aside. Respondent-Board is directed to grant benefit, as prayed for, to the petitioner being legal representative of the deceased Smt. Amro Devi in terms of Rules 277 and 278 of the Rules forthwith.
