Case: Lanco Anpara Power Ltd Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh

v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (1980) 4 SCC 443 this Court reminded that semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of bread and butter statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions.29. We would also like to reproduce a passage from Workmen of American Express v. Management of American Express, (1985) 4 SCC 71 which provides complete answer to the argument of the appellants based on literal construction:"4. The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and human rights legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to Liliputian dimensions. In construing these legislations the imposture of literal construction must be avoided and the prodigality of its misapplication must be recognised and reduced. Judges ought to be more concerned with the "colour", the "content" and the "context" of such statutes (we have borrowed the words from Lord Wilberforces opinion in Prenn v. Simmonds [(1971) 3 All ER 237] ). In the same opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out that law is not to be left behind in some island of literal interpretation but is to enquire beyond the language, unisolated from the matrix of facts in which they are set; the law is not to be interpreted purely on internal linguistic considerations..."30. In equal measure is the message contained in Carew and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1975) 2 SCC 791 :"21. The law is not "a brooding omnipotence in the sky" but a pragmatic instrument of social order. It is an operational art controlling economic life, and interpretative effort must be imbued with the statutory purpose. No doubt, grammar is a good guide to meaning but a bad master to dictate..."31. The sentiments were echoed in Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr., 2009(4) S.C.T. 421 : (2009) 9 SCC 61 in the following words:"20. The Employees State Insurance Act is a beneficial legislation. The main purpose of the enactment as the Preamble suggests, is to provide for certain benefits to employees of a factory in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. The Employees State Insurance Act is a social security legislation and the canons of interpreting a social legislation are different from the canons of interpretation of taxation law. The courts must not countenance any subterfuge which would defeat the provisions of social legislation and the courts must even, if necessary, strain the language of the Act in order to achieve the purpose which the legislature had in placing this legislation on the statute book. The Act, therefore, must receive a liberal construction so as to promote its objects."32. In taking the aforesaid view, we also agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that superior purpose contained in BOCW Act and Welfare Cess Act has to be kept in mind when two enactments - the Factories Act on the one hand and BOCW Act/Welfare Cess Act on the other hand, are involved, both of which are welfare legislations. (See Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank, (2000) 4 SCC 406 which has been followed in Pegasus Assets Reconstruction P. Ltd. v. M/s. Haryana Concast Limited & Anr., 2016(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 37 : 2016 (1) SCALE 1 in the context of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Companies Act, 1956. Here the concept of felt necessity would get triggered and as per the Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in BOCW Act, since the purpose of this Act is to take care of a particular necessity i.e. welfare of unorganised labour class involved in construction activity, that needs to be achieved and not to be discarded. Here the doctrine of Purposive Interpretation also gets attracted which is explained in recent judgments of this Court in Richa Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2016(1) S.C.T. 776 : (2016) 4 SCC 179 at Page No. 197 and Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, 2016(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 928 : 2016(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 503 : (2016) 3 SCC 619 - Para 31.33. We are left to deal with the argument of the appellants that while granting permission under the Factories Act, various conditions are imposed which the appellants are required to fulfill and these conditions are almost the same which are contained in BOCW Act. We are not convinced with this submission either. It is already held that provisions of Factories Act are not applicable to these construction workers. Registration under the Factories Act becomes necessary in view of provisions contained in Section 6 of the said Act as this Section requires taking of approval and registration of factories even at preparatory stage i.e. at the stage when the premises where factory is to operate has to ensure that construction will be done in such a manner that it takes care of safety measures etc. which are provided in the Factories Act. This means to ensure that construction is carried out in such a manner that provisions in the Factories Act to ensure health, safety and provisions relating to hazardous process as well as welfare measures are taken care of. It is for this reason that even after the building is completed before it is occupied, notice under Section 7 is to be given by the occupier to the Chief Inspector of Factories so that a necessary inspection is carried out to verify that all such measures are in place. Therefore, when the permissions for construction of factories is given, the purpose is altogether different.34. It is stated at the cost of repetition that construction workers are not covered by the Factories Act and, therefore, welfare measures specifically provided for such workers under the BOCW Act and Welfare Cess Act cannot be denied.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]21. On the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes clear that "factory" is that establishment where manufacturing process is carried on with or without the aid of power. Carrying on this manufacturing process or manufacturing activity is thus a prerequisite. It is equally pertinent to note that it covers only those workers who are engaged in the said manufacturing process. Insofar as these appellants are concerned, construction of building is not their business activity or manufacturing process. In fact, the building is being constructed for carrying out the particular manufacturing process, which, in most of these appeals, is generation, transmission and distribution of power. Obviously, the workers who are engaged in construction of the building also do not fall within the definition of worker under the Factories Act. On these two aspects there is no cleavage and both parties are at ad idem. What follows is that these construction workers are not covered by the provisions of the Factories Act.22. Having regard to the above, if the contention of the appellants is accepted, the construction workers engaged in the construction of building undertaken by the appellants which is to be used ultimately as factory, would stand excluded from the provisions of BOCW Act and Welfare Cess Act as well. Could this be the intention while providing the definition of building and other construction work in Section 2(d) of BOCW Act? Clear answer to this has to be in the negative.23. We may mention at this stage that High Court is right in observing that merely because the appellants have obtained a licence under Section 6 of the Factories Act for registration to work a factory, it would not follow therefrom that they answer the description of the "factory" within the meaning of the Factories Act. We have reproduced the definition of factory and a bare reading thereof makes it abundantly clear that before this stage, when construction of the project is completed and the manufacturing process starts, factory within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act does not come into existence so as to be covered by the said Act.24. We now advert to the core issue touching upon the construction of Section 2(d) of the BOCW Act. The argument of the appellants is that language thereof is unambiguous and literal construction is to be accorded to find the legislative intent. To our mind, this submission is of no avail. Section 2(d) of the BOCW Act dealing with the building or construction work is in three parts. In the first part, different activities are mentioned which are to be covered by the said expression, namely, construction, alterations, repairs, maintenance or demolition. Second part of the definition is aimed at those buildings or works in relation to which the aforesaid activities are carried out. The third part of the definition contains exclusion clause by stipulating that it 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), applies. Thus, first part of the definition contains the nature of activity; second part contains the subject matter in relation to which the activity is carried out and third part excludes those building or other construction work to which the provisions of Factories Act or Mines Act apply.26. The aforesaid meaning attributed to the exclusion clause of the definition is also in consonance with the objective and purpose which is sought to be achieved by the enactment of BOCW Act and Welfare Cess Act. As pointed out above, if the construction of this provision as suggested by the appellants is accepted, the construction workers who are engaged in the construction of buildings/projects will neither get the benefit of the Factories Act nor of BOCW Act/Welfare Cess Act. That could not have been the intention of the Legislature. BOCW Act and Welfare Cess Act are pieces of social security legislation to provide for certain benefits to the construction workers.taking the aforesaid view, we also agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that superior purpose contained in BOCW Act and Welfare Cess Act has to be kept in mind when two enactments - the Factories Act on the one hand and BOCW Act/Welfare Cess Act on the other hand, are involved, both of which are welfare legislations. (See Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank, (2000) 4 SCC 406     which has been followed in Pegasus Assets Reconstruction P. Ltd. v. M/s. Haryana Concast Limited & Anr., 2016(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 37 : 2016 (1) SCALE 1     in the context of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Companies Act, 1956. Here the concept of felt necessity would get triggered and as per the Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in BOCW Act, since the purpose of this Act is to take care of a particular necessity i.e. welfare of unorganised labour class involved in construction activity, that needs to be achieved and not to be discarded. Here the doctrine of Purposive Interpretation also gets attracted which is explained in recent judgments of this Court in Richa Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2016(1) S.C.T. 776 : (2016) 4 SCC 179     at Page No. 197 and Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, 2016(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 928 : 2016(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 503 : (2016) 3 SCC 619   - Para 31.is already held that provisions of Factories Act are not applicable to these construction workers. Registration under the Factories Act becomes necessary in view of provisions contained in Section 6 of the said Act as this Section requires taking of approval and registration of factories even at preparatory stage i.e. at the stage when the premises where factory is to operate has to ensure that construction will be done in such a manner that it takes care of safety measures etc. which are provided in the Factories Act. This means to ensure that construction is carried out in such a manner that provisions in the Factories Act to ensure health, safety and provisions relating to hazardous process as well as welfare measures are taken care of. It is for this reason that even after the building is completed before it is occupied, notice under Section 7 is to be given by the occupier to the Chief Inspector of Factories so that a necessary inspection is carried out to verify that all such measures are in place. Therefore, when the permissions for construction of factories is given, the purpose is altogether different.34. It is stated at the cost of repetition that construction workers are not covered by the Factories Act and, therefore, welfare measures specifically provided for such workers under the BOCW Act and Welfare Cess Act cannot be denied.