SRI G' SUDERSHAN' REPRESENTING SRI v. SUBRAHMANYAM

Judgment

1. Y.V. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Rosaiah Choud?ry' . aged about-S4- -y.ears' o*, nl]i*.i-CJ"tiictcir, rilo.'n.No'io-z--t+, Flai No'201' Momi Devi Niwas' W-eit tr,tarre,ipally, Secunderabad ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT Commissioner of Labour, Govemment of Andhra Pradesh' T' Anjaiah thavan' RTC X Roads, HYderabad- 2 ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affirlavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay order dated 22'06'2011 in WPMP No' 20694 of 2011 in WP No' 17227 ot2O11. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G' SUDERSHAN' REPRESENTING SRI V. SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1 to 11: SRI P' BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No'12: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER :u!ll Order, I 1 a IVLr. (,.Sudershan, leamed counsel" reprerrentrng Mr. v.subcrnlanrarn, reamed counser for the g,titioner, fairry submits thar: rhr: issue raised in this vrit petition is sciuarely covered b;.,,:rJer dated 24.11.2022, passsd by r:his Coun in V.P.No.1060l cn:2011 and batch. In vir:ri, ,r( aforesaid submission, this Vnt petiti rn is disposed of in rr.rms of rhe onCer darted,2+.11.2022, passr:d by this Coun ir ,$2,[,.No.10 60l of 2Olland barch. Nr cosrs. As a sequcl. miscellaneous petitions, pending i[ any, s cand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- ,(. AMMAJI T RJ:GISTRAR To, 1 The General I\lar,i,aer, South Central Railway, Ra Secunderabac ?. 9nte[ Enginee (\rlrorks), South Cenkal Railway, Secunderabad 3. Qhief Enginee- (rl)rnstructions), South Central Rdilway Secunderat ad 4. Chief Administrative Office(construction), South Central Flailway Secunderab:rc rn:# TIOTIOFFICER m,

9. Qeputy Chiel' [:np;ireer (Constructions), South Central Railway Sec tnderabad 6. Senior Accorrnts C,fficer, South Central Railway Tirupathi, Chiltoor , Iistrict 7. Senior Divisirrnal F irancial Manager, South Central Railwzry lst flor r, 8. Senior Divisional F inancial Manager, Secunderabad Division, Sanc-ulan 9. Divisional Rail,lay lrlanger (works), Hyderabad division, S,:ruth Cen.ral Hyderabad Ehav,l r Secunderabad- Bhavan, 3rd floo' Srouth Central Railway,

10. Divisional Rail,way lrlanage(Works), Secunderabad Divisirtn, Soutt Central

11. Divisional Er'1;inr:r r ng Officer, Carriage Workshop South {)entral F ailway, Railway, Secund,; iibad Railway, Sec.und': abad Secunderabirc l2.Commissioner of Labour, Govemment of Andhra Pradesh' T' Anjaiah Bhavan' ,r . 3H d8ffi; [13i,'3,??l;, ii.?,ffi "3 3 ?ilJaBi3?tT'"t?,'fiff;%ffJ#the state orreransana' at tO-Two CD CoPies Ad vocate roP U c] Hvderabad[OUT] "ra m' . TJ GJP (Along with the Copy of Order dated 24'11'2}22ln W'P'No'106O1 Of 2011) W \ { HIGH CQrl-,P7 \ DATED:2/ toZtZO2S ORDER WP.No.17,Z2tz sf lg11 1 () '-) -l- r9 +'rt lt | ,i11t 716 :.'1 a'i I l JI f, t' t ( t { DISPOSING Of: TI WTHOUT CO$T'S WRIT PETIT,.N \q(0€"a k dLo t: IION;'BLESRI JUSTICE K. LAKSI{MAN WRIT PETITION Nos;10601 OF 20ll AND 17 219 & 17235 0F 2022 COMMONORDER Heard Mr. A. Nagendra Rao, leamed counsel for the petition€rs, Mr. R. Mangutal,.learned Standing Counsel for Central Govern-arent appearing on ' behalf of respondent Nos' I to 3 and Mrs' Anjali Agarwal, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. W.P.No.t060l ol20l I is filed to; a) to call for the records pertaining to the action of the respondents with regard to l7o Labour Cess deducting from the bills of the petitioner under the provisions of the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996' Rules made there-under, the Memo No.W' 148/1/9/Vol' IV dated

03.03.2009 issued by the respondent No.2 and set them aside; b) to direct the respondents not to recover t%o Labour Cess from the bitls payablc to the petitloner cither ol the works covered under Tender Notice No.44lCR/07 dated lg.Og.2OO7, No'68/S/08 dated 07'07'2008' No.98/S/08 dated 10.12.2008 and No.2llS/09 dated23'03'2@9 or any other works; and c) to award costs by holding the action oF the respondents herein as illega l. 2 : , W.P. Nos. 172 t9 and 17235 of 20 ve-y sa n,o relief. I i I I i I i 22 I ]IL J I Nci I )64)l oi20l I & harh fi led seekins I t" I I 4 Since /rs involved in the aforesaid threr : wri t prlt tions is anrl thr: ; lme, they werc heard together and de,::id <t b r way of this cornrl0't order. e l I In all the aforesaid three writ petition,;, the pe itioners are Colrtracftr,s. Tirey have been executing contraots oi So,rth Centrai Railriai t: various ptaces. All the petitioners lra,..e parlici rated in the Ter,den; i;sued by thc South Central Railwal and I [r :y bccame suc:ess{bl bidders in respcct ofthe subject tenders Therertftcr, South Cen(ral Ii.rilway has attotted the aforesaid subjecr ucrks to the petitionr,r; Thcy have also entercd into agrecments on lre speciftc tenrrs anJ r:or.rditions agreed thereon.

5. rtespondent No.4 has issued notices to th,l pe itioncrs to ret.nrl hu lJing and othcr construction workers wcllhrc cc;s (trt. lvo on the :c,st 0 [ construction/estimated cost w.e.F. 26.06.2e0] < urvards as per hr: l irr lding and Other Construction Workers Weltare Cess Act, 199(, ilhcreinafter referred as .Cess Act, 1996, fbr breuity), and 3 KI-J W-P. Nos-1060l ol 20ll & barch decided to recover tlre amounts from the bilts payable to the petitioners. 7 The petitioners have filed the aforesaid three writ petitions contending as follows: i. There is no mention of payment of t7o Labour Cess to be paid by the petitioners in the Tender Notifications or in the Schedules or in the Agreements mentioned; ii.Thereislalsonomentionaboutthetiabilityofthepetitiorrcrs with regard to the payment of the aforesaid 17o Labour Cess' Without'mentioning the same' the respondents cannot claim the said amciunt from the petitionersi iii. The respondent authorities cannot shift the said tiability on the petitioners' Therefore' the petitioners are not liable to pay the said amount @ l% of the contract towards labour cess as per lhe Cess Act' 1996; iv. The respondenB have not even issued any notice seeking explanation demanding the aforesaid amount and' thus' the action of the respondcnts is unilateral and arbitrary; The petitioners are no way related to the buitding activities as providedundertlreAct28oftgg6and,therefore,theprovisions 4 (J w.t'. Nos 16(lt .f20r | & harch :,1 :hc said Cess Act, 1996 are inapplicable to the; etitioner lor I r .' purpose of deducting I oZ labour cess (iom the I ,ilts payable tc 11"rr'r' V' vII [.icspondent No.4 has no autliority or juris,lictirtn lc deduct [%o lat c ur cess from 26.06.2007 onwards on the t:r isting bills p;,r rrble to tlre petitioners herein; TIrrr rg5p6ndlg.6 without making any assessment rf cess, as rc,l.rircd under the Cess Act, 1996 anrl the lL rles rnade tlu:reunder and without fixing liability on th,.,petition rrs. carutot rlire:i the respondent authorities to deduct l9i, Iabour cess fiom tltL: lr lls oI the petitioners. Thc said action or.llle resf rudents is ;rrb ilr r11, and illegal; 'l hr ::mponent of expenditure upon the labour is onll 30% out o1- lrr: total cost of tlte works which should trc th,: bas is firr the :ak:ulrtion of t% labour ccss, but not on the total !t( st of.the cJnlrItt as the basis lor the purpose ol. caicula ion and d':dLrc tion o[ t% labour cess fronr the work:; cxccu c J by the f,() tl t !( ,trerS; and I'ltc petitioners have 'r" thlrcld the aforesaid contended that the respondr:r ts ltave lok labour ccss frorn thc h Is and. 5 KL.I w.P Nos 1060l ol20ll & barch therefore, they souglrt a direction to the respondents to release the same with interest @ 24% p€r annum for the delay in paynr€nt. With the aforesaid submissions, a[[ the petitioners sought to declare the aforesaid action of the respondents in calculating [7o labour cess from the petitioners' bitls as illegal.

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Railways appearing on behatf of respondent Nos.l to 3, on instructions, would submit that it is a Statute and it came into force from 26.06.2007 and, therefore, the petitioners have to pay the said amount. There is no need to mention about I o/o labour cess to be paid in the agreementVnotifications: It is a statutory obtigation on the part of the petitioners/contractors to cornply with the statutory obligation' He has also placed reliance on the principle laid dorvn in catena of decisions to the said effeit. I I 9, Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleadcr for Labour appearing on behatf of respondent No.4 also supported the contentions of the t' leamed Standing Counsel for Railways and he has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court' l 6 TI ,J \\'rr hv.s 0601 of20l I & b.r.h t) The petirioner in W.p. No_ I 060 I of 210 I t has ited copy of agrecn-€rt datcd 19.09.2007 entered between hinr arrd th: respondent Railwav ln the said agreement, the nature of ,r orL is r rentioned as un J.o r "Sll.l(ZJ-Section - SWI - Repairs to ballast rctairing valls on AI-rl: \,/North Sub Division - SW-ll - propose<1 Raising c f baltast letriners, Repairs to Pitching of banks, step:: etc fcrr bridges ( | '( r YU 6floges). Cost, <la:t: of cornmencement, date of complctron zrnd r naintenance etc . art also specifically mentioned. The v:tluc of lrc work is Rs.llri,l,l .t2 t/-. Like-wisc, hc has also , fi1..,1 ng,"" ncnt dated

07.'1" 2r),)8, whcrein also, the nature oF wor.k isr nrr ntioned as ' ct ttstr r :trcn o.f boundary wall to preven, ettcrot chmenl in ADt.V/.t.1ttll". The value of the work is Rs.45,51,67Ul_. le has also fi[c,l anorlrer agrcenlent dated 10.12.200g, whcrein tho nirt rre of work is nrerrIi:rned as "repairs to compound wall of s t,.t-f[ quartt rs between WL.(;L.,1 n ADEN/S/KZJ sub division at WL,t4ABD,t,,tt:D.', The valrrr: c,1' rhc work is mentioned as Rs.23,56 3ggr_. [n another agr(:enlent dated 23.03.2009, the naturc oF work i:; nrt ntioncd as "Ret,rt.ir. ,o front verandah for Type-I qLm.rter., be,,y,ee,r fi/L_GLA 7 KL-] W P Nos.1060l ol 2Oll & barch section on ADEN/S/KZJ sub division at WL, NKD' KDM & MABD." The value of the work is mentioned as Rs-51,45,208/-. [n other two I writ petitions, the petitioners have not filed copies ofthe agreements / work orders. Despite granting opportunity by this Court, they have not filed copies ofthe said agreements t l. [t ii relevant to note that in a[[ the three writ petitions, the Chief Engineei (Works), respondent No.2, had issued proceedings, dated 03.03.2009 statingr that respondent No.4 i.e., the Commissioner i of Labour, Govemment ol A.P., had served a notice dated 20 1 1 2007 to remit the Building and other Construction Workers Welfarc Cess @ l%o on the cost of construction /estimatcd cost of construction lrom

26.06-2001 onwards as per the provisions ol the Ccss Act, l996 The Railway Board vide letter dated 09.07.2008 had advised to incorporate necessary clauie in the tender documents of all luture tenders so as to i comply with statutory provision of recovering of buitding cess from i ! the ContractorJ' bitts, indlcating that cost of material sha[[ be outside the purview of 'cess wheri supplied under a separate schedule item'

12. In lview of the above, the Railways have decided for recovery of bJilding and other construction workers welfare cess at I 8 K -.J $ t Nos 10601 of20l I & balch I !'(, fr,:,r n 26.06.2007 onwards. They have deci,Ced the c rses inro two (021 , c: 1-*o.i". i.e., (i) agreements entered with the <:ontr rctors for the te rclen <,alled for Juty, 2008; and (ii) agreements ente red with the conrra(:ti prior to July,2008 which are in forc. altur 26.06.2007 but u'rtlLout specific clause of building cess. [n resp:ct of cat rgory No.(i), thr: ces r rvill be recovered as per the specific clatrse incorJ orated in the contract agreement. With regard to categorrr I.J,:.(ii) tlie;, have refbrrerl the judgment o[ the combined High Corlt ol. Anr thra pradesh at l-l yde.;rbad in M/s. Cormandel prestcretc private Limited v. Stat,: of Andhra pradesh, rep. hy principa( rSr cretary to Goverr rnent, Irrigation and CAD Departmcntt. wh, rein it was held th:t ( ess can be recovered based on the followin6; poi ns: (a ) \\ t lfare Board was constituted by the r\nd[: ra pradesh (;c r cmment and C.O.Ms.No.57 was issuecl on 26.06.2007 d r::ting all the Officers of Central Go uemmen and State (ic\ crrunent to recover the building cess. This (ourt in the albr:said judgnrent categorically held that no n:ticc is required to lrrr issued For recovery ofcess from the Contractc,r s brlls: 201116) \.. Xil 9 KI-J W.P. Nos-l060l oi 201 I & batch (b) The datb i.e., 26.06.2001 was also uphetd by the Court stating that the implementation was already delayed which was supposed to be from 26-09.1996 i'e', date of notification by Central Govemment; and (c) This Court has considered Clause - 69 of the agreements executed by ther State Government establishments which provide | flor compliance with tabour regulations' But' ln Raitwayi contract agreements, there is no such direct clause' The clause provided cover Minimum Wages Act' Contract Labour (R.egutations and Abolition) Act etc'' but the High Court mentionld that mdre absence ol clause relating to levy of l% cess in the contract agreement does not preclude the departmcnt frorn levying the same Therefore, thei bulldinglcess has to be recovered invariably even though thc spclific clarse is not available in the tender'

13. A simitar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 28.02.2007. In view of the same' respondent No 2 I directed all the divisions to work out the cess to be collectcd from contractors froin the agreements in force on or after 26 06'2001 and l 10 Ii.J \\' t, N.s. 0601 ot l0 & barch ah;o fi,r ri the agreements in which work is cornpleted t ut finat bi s ar(' . e) l bc drawn as on date and take immedirtely nec :ssary action to rrrccrvt. the amounts from the contractors, bijls and ar advise may be 11,verr ro the contractors regarding the said recr rvenz. 1 In W.P Nos.l72l9 of 2022 and l7li5. o- 2022, the 1 petir.rorr:l-:; have subrnitted representations, dated 1l 0l.2O2l and 22.,11 .21).lI respectively requesting respondent No.3. thc Senior Di t is ior ri i F i nancial Manager, South Central,Rai twa1., infc,r-nrirrr that FDRs are pending which lras been given a; surcty for rcc()vor) ri building eess. Thc work has b""ri co,,.,pl"r"! a rd amounts relc,,tsr-rii t:acgpg certain amounts. Thus, thr:y ndcrabad, lrave requested lSe,,u respondr: r I No.3 to release the payments which rrre pecifica[[y menti.rnr.c thcrein r< In view of the aforesaid submissions, i; is I.eiev rnt to note that r {e:r rr,rd Judge oIthe combined Higrr Court or- Aa llira [,rac{esrr at Hydcrrb:r in M/s. Cormandel prestcrete] prir,atc ag,o;,"rr, nu. exlerLs vcl.,. considered the scheme of the aforesaid rwo Actr i.e., Cess Act, i9!)rr arrd the Building and Other Consrtrucrior Workers, (Rcgrrl:trorL of Employment and Conditions of !icrvi:e) , \ct, t996 KLJ w P Nos 1060l of20l I & barch ('the Workers'rAct' for breviry) as well as its objects and, ultimately, I the fotlowing seven (07) issues were framed. ) 1- Whether before implementing the provisions of a statute (Cess Act) and issuance of orders in the impugned Memo, which seeks to irnpletnent the provisions oI the statut€, by way oI collection of t%o labour cess from tlte bills of tl€ petitioners' th€ Govemment is under an obligation to issue notice to the petitioners, and whether non-issuance of prior notice, violated tt.re principles of natural justice? I

2. whether ih" Gou"*-.nt by issuance o[ orders in a Memo, is entitted to cotlect t%o labour cess frorn the bilts of the petitioners w.e.f .26.06.2007, i.e. a date much prior to its issuance and after constitutlon of the Welfare Boards as provided under the statute? i

3. Whether rion-mentioning of ttre levy and collection of I %o labour cess in the agreements/contracts entered into by the petitioners with the respondeots, gives the petitioners any legitimate expectation that t7o labour cess in terms of the Cess Act, would not be cottected by the respondents from thcrn? I :

4. Whether dbsence of the clause relating to levy and collection of l% Iab<iur cess in the agreements/cootracts, disentitles the responddnts from deducting the said I o/o labour cess lrorn the bilts of the petitioners, which in fact, is sought to be collected rn I giving effect to the Cess Acl?

5. Whether by altowing the respondents to collect the said l7' labour clss on the basis of the impugned Memo issued by the Government, amounts to permilting the respondeflts to alter the l I] t2 K, ,J r| P N.s 0601 olz0l I & barch tr-n1s and conditions of the agre€ments/contr? cts, onter€ I into I \ the petitioners with ttre respondents?

6. \Vl:cther the respondents are entitled to collect l%o labou- cess r r ly alter following the proc€dure contelnplate,l undcr thr Ccss /.,1, in that after filing of reums by the petitioners, mak ng of aj jcsslrent by the authority, detennination ol liab,lity ,,f the tr::itioners, and after issuance of sltow cau,,C n(,ticr: as to c r lection of such detcrmined liability?

7.V,/:,]ther the respondents, while collecting loZ Lrbour cess frorn tl r bills of the petitiooers in tenns of the C.:ss .a.cr, s rould r,)llect the same only taking into consideration the rost ( f the ronstmction, but nor the entire value of the. work, and jrvl ether I c elernent o[ profit should be ercluded while d.:ductinj tt e I % aq rur cess? I i On considering the submissions macr.e b). bot r sides, the lcarrr.'d I rJge treld as under: "Thc respondents do rtot disput€ the fact hat rr son c of t r r agreelnents/contracts entered into by tl.rern with the 'eirtiorlers prior to 26_06.2007, there is no clause rnco.pora ccl i-r ler.y and collection of lolo labour cess lrorn thc bills prr able I r tlretn, and that levy and collection of t%o laborir cess, $a not irrr luded in the estimates submitted. However, thc absencJ of I; r rr a clause relating to levy and collection of lg,, labcur c:e;s in tlrr agrccrncntVcontracts and non-inclusion of (!rc salre ir the crli,Ilatcs, by itseltdo not preclude the rcsponden,s frorn lev ring . r,l collecting the t%o labour cess, which in fact, rs soughr t ) be lrr i,:d and collected by giving effect to the prrvisrons ,,f a sll l te. wlrich was in lorcc as on the date ol tlte resDorid )nts KL.J w P Nos 10601 ol 20ll & batch i enlering, into agreements/ctntracts with the petitioners. No doubt, i[ the agreements/contracts entered into by tlre respondens with the petitioners prior to 26.06.2007, the clause relating to )evy and collection of cess is absent' but the fact remains,i at the time when the petitioners entered into agreements/contracts with the respondents' the W6rkers Act and the Cessi Act; which carne into force on w.e.f. 01.0].1996 and 03.t1.1996 respectively, were very much in force, and in fact, the petidioners in Clauses No-69 of the agreementycontrac{s entered into by them with the respondents, have agreed to compty *ith all the [abour regulations." I i "....tn that view ol the matter, it has to be held tliat the contention of the petitioners that the respondents are not entitled to collect lolo labour cess unless they lollow the procedure contempiated under the Cess Act, namely after filing of retums by the petitioners, fotlowed by assessment by the auttrority, determiiation of liabitity ot the petitioners' and calling upon them to show cause as to why the amount determined should not be cotleited, is bereft oI any rnerit." i I t' "...-Thu(, it is clear that the labour cess sought to be collected is not on the entire value of the work, but only on the cost of const-ctiorr, which is as provided in Section 3 of the Cess Act and Ruti 3 of the Rules tnade tltereunder' as also the noti(rcation dared 26109.1996, issued by the Central Governrnent Therefore, it has do be heldithat the resPonden{s while levying and collectinl the labour cess' have to collect lhe same on lhe cost o[ the condtruction incurred by an employer and not the entire value ofthe work. Accordingty, this question is answered " II I l4 K __' \^ P Nos 10601 ol20l I & barch t7, In another judgment o[a Division Bench of *e High Court of .lud i y.11uL for the States of Telangana and Andhr r pradesh at H lclcr:rllrd in Government of Andhra pradesh r,. Lakamsani SanrbrL Siva Raoz, had considered the definitio.r of Sect on _ 2 (d) of tht: $y'r-,1ksm Act and cost of construction as defined unrk r Section _ 3 (l r ,-rf ilrt: Cess Act, 1996 and held that the expression ,,building or otler ('..)n t tru.ction worli, is neither a heading o{.Section, nor can [hat be tr-eatr{ as a marginal note. It is an expression rvhic h is defined by Scclio r - 2(d). ThereForc, the contention,that mcrely the heading of Sccticr - 2(d) of the Workers Act uses the wo.d ,buitcti ry, does not mca, ar) building, including blast fumace, wlrich is ] rrherwise not inclucle,i in ttre definition origina y or by issuinp notification cor'.lcnll) r! ted under this provision cannot bc accr:pted. Ttr,: e1p1s5ria, "tht ,:'o.,t )f conslruclion'' as ernployed in Sectic,n - :! (l) ol the Cess Act, l9')i rvould mean the entire cost incurred lilr constxction of a builrlinp. ;uch as crane or blast fumace, since its oonst rction and erer:tir.rri ( )irnnot be separated. Though two separate agrce ucnts were cxe,rl tc{{ l,ctween the contractors and companics_priitcipi I employer lor :r,ns r uction and suppty of ptant, rnachinery and, e(tuipr,lcnt, which r 20 r;r2) i,)7t6(DB) l5 KLJ w P Nos 1060l ol 20ll & bat.h was a composite contract for construction/erection of crane with material. Therefore, contract for supply o[ plant and machinery cannot be taken into account for directing the contractors to payldeduct l7o cess under the provisions ofCess Act, 1996 I8. In view of the aforesaid principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the contention of the petitioners is that without including the levy oF l% labour cess in the subject contracts, th€ respondents cannot claim the same is untenable. As discussed above, as per the provisions ofthe Statute, it is the statutory obligation on the part ofthe contractors to comply with the same. Merely because the clause is not incorporated in the agreements, the petitioners cannot now contend that they are not liable to pay the said cess [9. As discussed above, in W.P. Nos.l72 19 and 17235 ot 2022, the petitioners have not hled copies ofthe agreements' However, they have mentiohed the agreement numbers as Agre€ment Nos.44lCR./2007, 68/5/2008, 98/5/2008 and 2lls/2009 and : 78Nl2oO7, 44/N/2OO} & 88/N/20o9 respectively. However, the ,i petitioner in W.P. No.17235 of 2022 has not mentioned the dates of i the said agreenients, but it appears they relate to thc years of2008 and t6 K ..1 ll P. Nx 0601 ot20ll&barch 2(t()9. t.; stated above, respondent No.4 trad issued Notilication dated 2('.(t6.'.'ot)7 constituting a Board by issuing ,.i.e. .f rerefore, the peti:iorrrrs have to pay the aforesaid cess at thrl afcresard rate w.e.f.

26.06.,0O7 itself. Ttre said principle was also [aid down by a learned Sinp;lc Judgc oI this Court in IVUs. Cornranderl prestcr.ete private Lirnitcrlr No writ appeal is filed against the said jurll ment and it attainerl l-rnality. Thus, both the petitioners ',n ,U.0. No;.t7219 and l72-i5 ot )022 b.ave to pay the aforesaid cess at tl\e aforesi id rate. llC. [n so far as rhe petitioner in W.p ],ro. 10601 of 201 I is corr,rcntcc, the name of the work and the luu. r" .rf, t[.e work arc spe<:rficarly nrcntioncd in the contract. [u all the agree nents dated

19.3()2{),)7, 07.07.2008, 10.12.200g and 23.03 ZO0,l, lrn: narure of worK. \,:l rre ol the works have been specifically mention rd. A[[ the sairl *,cr,'l: ; includes the dcfirrition of ,,buittling t,t. otlter ( ot$truction v'ot k' a:. cefined under Section - 2 (d) of the Workers Act. t995. The petiti,rn(.r n W.P. No.1060l of 201 I is tiabte to pay cess in tenns of Secl',,n I rrf Act 28 of 1996. 2l . As discussed above, vide procecdings (tarec 0-1.o3.2009 i.e. Chii:f I: r;inecr, Works of South Central Railu,ay bas n rrrated the l7 KI-J W P- Nos.l060l ol 20l I & barch entire facts and atso G.O.Ms.No.57, dated 26.06.2007 issued by respondent Nolz "onsi of Central clrr"-*" ting Wellare Board directing al[ the Officers I nt and State Government for recovery the building i{e has alsb referred the judgments in M/s. Cormandel Prestcrete p.ilrt" Limitedr and the Delhi High Court in its judgment "ess. dated 28.02 I i He has also categorized all the cases into two. Referring to t h[ same, vide proceedings, dated 03.03.2009, respondent No.2 has ins I I I cted all the Divisions of South Central Railways to work out cess to be collected from contractors from the agreements ln force on or after 26.06.2007 and also from the agreements ln which work is completed but final bills are yet to be drawn as on d te and take immediate necessary action to recover the a amounts from I the contrictors' bitls. Thus, there is no error in the same. It is a ned order/instructions issued by respondent No.2.

22. Vi any ground to I ed fromiany angle, the petitioners faited to make out interfere Juith th" aforesaid proceedings and, thcrefore, the writ petitio I t hs fails an the same are liable to be dismissed I I I r( t8 i _.1 \1 P. l\os 10601 or20t t & barch 2 i . All these writ petitions are ja, corrlinlil z dismissed. I{cr'r'e' r:r , in the circumstances of the case, ther e shafi b : no order as to lost s A s a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, p :nding in the wnt p(lt tious shall stand closed. 24 r' November, 2022 Mt', K. LAI.:SHMAN, J