JABALPUR, India, July 22 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on June 23:

IA No.8172 of 2025

1. This is an application for condonation of delay.

2. For the reason stated in the application, the delay of five days is condonded. IA is allowed.

W.A No.1355 of 2025

1. Appellants impugns order dated 23.01.2025.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single judge has held that petitioners would fall within the definition of Factory and work which has been done by factory will not be covered under Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment & conditions of Service) Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act.

3. Petitioner is a generating company. It is in this context that the work done by the factory would not be covered by the subject Act. However, construction work done for extension of the factory would be covered under the Act. By the order impugned in the writ petition i.e. order dated 02.09.2006, the Collector had merely asked the petitioners to disclose the construction work being carried out and deposit 1% of the contract value for the construction work.

4. Learned counsel appearing for State also concedes that the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is correct. What the petitioners have been made liable is for the construction work undertaken by the petitioners for extension of its factory and not the work carried out by the factory.

5. The impugned order is very clear, petitioners are made liable only for the construction work undertaken for extension of the factory which has been held to be covered. Consequently, petitioners could not have denied providing information to the Collector for the construction work being undertaken for extension of factory and deposit of 1% of the said value of work being undertaken.

6. Reference may also be had to the amendment to Section 3 of the Act whereby Section 3(1A) has been inserted which provides that notwithstanding anything contend in sub-section-1, cost incurred on purchase and transportation of plant and machinery made to be used in factory and such other cost as may be specified by the notification issued by the State Government shall be excluded from the cost of construction incurred by the employer.

7. Consequently, the argument of learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that the Collector is likely to include the cost of plant and machinery is misplaced. The Collector can only impose 1% cess on the construction activity being undertaken for extension of factory and not the cost of plant and machinery.

8. Learned counsel for State submitted that the Collector is not including the cost of plant and machinery and the argument of learned Senior Counsel for appellants is misplaced and it is only the cost of construction for extension on which cess is liable to be paid.

9. In view of the admitted position of the parties, no further orders are called for in the appeal.

10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.