{"id":376834,"date":"2026-02-26T10:00:26","date_gmt":"2026-02-26T04:30:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=376834"},"modified":"2026-02-26T10:32:50","modified_gmt":"2026-02-26T05:02:50","slug":"prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"No Welfare Board, No Cess: Supreme Court Reiterates the Bar on Welfare Cess Collection from Developers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Supreme Court in Prakash Atlanta (JV) v. NHAI holds that constitution of Welfare Boards is a condition precedent for levy and collection of cess under the BOCW Act and the Cess Act.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court of India in Prakash Atlanta (JV)<\/span> v. NHAI<\/span><\/a>1<\/sup><\/a>, held that the constitution of Welfare Boards is essential and a condition precedent for levy and collection of cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996<\/span><\/a> (BOCW Act) and the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996<\/a> (Cess Act).<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court passed a common judgment in a batch of six civil appeals concerning the levy and recovery of welfare cess under the BOCW Act and the Cess Act in highway construction contracts across different States.<\/p>\n

Understanding the law<\/h2>\n

The BOCW Act is a welfare legislation enacted to regulate the employment and service conditions of building and construction workers and to provide for the safety, health, and welfare of such workers. It also provides for the constitution of the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (Welfare Board) in every State to provide welfare measures and monitor social security schemes for such workers. Similarly, the Cess Act provides for the levy and collection of welfare cess by a Welfare Board at one per cent of the cost of construction, incurred by a principal employer and\/or contractor.<\/p>\n

Factual background<\/h2>\n

In the case under reference, the petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent for a highway construction project in Uttar Pradesh in 2001. At the time, although the BOCW Act and the Cess Act were in force, no Welfare Board had been constituted in the State. Subsequently, the contract was terminated by the respondent in 2008. It is important to note that under the standard National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) contract clauses, a contractor is required to factor into its bid only those taxes, duties, and levies that are actually payable and enforceable as on the cut-off date. If after that date, a new law is brought into effect, it qualifies as “subsequent legislation”, entitling the contractor to claim reimbursement or price adjustment.<\/p>\n

The respondent terminated the contract with the petitioner in 2008. However, disputes had arisen between the parties during the subsistence of the contract. The disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration and the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the respondent’s claims and accepted the petitioner’s claims towards price adjustment. The award was upheld by the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court in challenge proceedings pursued by the respondent.<\/p>\n

In 2010, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a circular levying one per cent cess under the BOCW Act and the Cess Act with effect from 4 February 2009, including projects that were ongoing as on that date. Subsequently in the execution proceedings in 2012, the respondent sought to deduct 1 per cent cess retrospectively, to adjust the amount allegedly payable by the petitioner towards the cess and paid a sum of Rs 3.13 crores to the petitioner against its claim of Rs 7.70 crores.<\/p>\n

A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court took a view that the deduction of one per cent cess till 2008 was valid which was upheld by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The petitioner appealed before the Supreme Court from this judgment.<\/p>\n

Issue<\/h2>\n

The issue raised before the Supreme Court of India was whether the BOCW Act and the Cess Act can be treated as “<\/span>subsequent legislation” in the contracts entered into by the respondents with its contractors.<\/p>\n

Contentions<\/h2>\n

1. Stance of the petitioner<\/span>: The petitioner argued that although the BOCW Act and the Cess Act were enacted, they were not in operation in Uttar Pradesh during the subsistence of its contract (2001—2008). The 2010 notification did not create retrospective liability to a contract that had terminated in 2008. Further, since no mechanism for collection of cess existed in 2001, it was not possible for the petitioner to factor the cess component into its bid price, and this liability amounts to imposition of a financial burden which was not anticipated. The petitioner argued that the attempt by the respondent for recovery of cess was raised for the first time in 2012 and was an afterthought.<\/p>\n

2. Stance of the respondent<\/span>: The respondent argued that the levy of cess under the BOCW Act and the Cess Act was permitted, since both the legislations had come into force in 1995—1996, which was before the award of the contract to the petitioner and hence could not be treated as “subsequent legislation”. The absence or delay in constitution of a Welfare Board does not suspend the operation of the BOCW Act and Cess Act as the 2010 notification was made applicable to ongoing projects which permitted recovery of cess for ongoing work executed prior to the date of the notification.<\/p>\n

Key takeaways from the ruling<\/h2>\n

The following are a few important observations made by the Supreme Court of India that laid the foundation for its decision:<\/p>\n

1. Dormancy of the legislations<\/span>: The Court held that while the BOCW Act and the Cess Act were technically “in force” at the time of subsistence of the contract, they remained dormant in practice until Welfare Boards were constituted. Levy and collection of cess without a receiving authority would defeat the statutory scheme and blur the distinction between a fee and a tax.<\/p>\n

2. Constitution of Welfare Boards is a condition precedent<\/span>: Relying on the judgment by the Supreme Court in A. Prabhakara Reddy & Co.<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span>2<\/sup><\/a> (A. Prabhakara case<\/span>), the Court reaffirmed that constitution of a Welfare Board is a sine qua non for levy or collection of cess. However, registration of workers or disbursement of welfare benefits is not a precondition to such collection.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Subsequent legislation<\/span>: The Court accepted the view of the Arbitral Tribunals that the notifications operationalising the BOCW Act constituted it as “subsequent legislation”, even if the parent statutes pre-existed.<\/p>\n

Comment<\/h2>\n

In line with the principles set out in A. Prabhakara case<\/span><\/a>3<\/sup><\/a>, this judgment tends to reconcile the statutory framework mandated under the BOCW Act and the Cess Act with the practical enforcement of these legislations. Instead of relying on the literal interpretation of the legislations, the Court adopted an approach as to whether enforcement of the mechanism of cess collection was possible in practice without existence of the Welfare Boards. The Court reaffirmed that administration implementation by the State was inseparable from the operation of the BOCW Act and Cess Act, since delay in formation of Welfare Boards was the result of administrative inaction with no control by the private contractors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Partner, Khaitan & Co.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

**Principal Associate, Khaitan & Co.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

***Associate, Khaitan & Co.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 98<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> (2016) 1 SCC 600<\/a> : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 206.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> A. Prabhakara Reddy & Co.<\/span> v.<\/a> State of M.P.<\/span><\/a>, (2016) 1 SCC 600<\/span><\/a> : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 206.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Anshul Prakash*, Deeksha Malik** and Sukriti Shrivastava***<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":376842,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20271,47404],"tags":[99599,99595,99597,99600,99594,99598,99601,99596],"class_list":["post-376834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-experts_corner","category-khaitan-co","tag-a-prabhakara-reddy-case-reliance","tag-bocw-act-cess-supreme-court-judgment","tag-building-and-other-construction-workers-cess-act-ruling","tag-nhai-highway-contract-cess-dispute","tag-prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-case-analysis","tag-subsequent-legislation-contract-law-india","tag-supreme-court-welfare-cess-recovery-2026","tag-welfare-board-condition-precedent-cess"],"yoast_head":"\nNo Welfare Board, No Cess: SC in Prakash Atlanta v NHAI<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court rules in Prakash Atlanta v NHAI that welfare cess under the BOCW Act cannot be levied without constitution of Welfare Boards.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"No Welfare Board, No Cess: Supreme Court Reiterates the Bar on Welfare Cess Collection from Developers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court rules in Prakash Atlanta v NHAI that welfare cess under the BOCW Act cannot be levied without constitution of Welfare Boards.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-26T04:30:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-26T05:02:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Prakash-Atlanta-v-NHAI-BOCW-Cess.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"533\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"No Welfare Board, No Cess: Supreme Court Reiterates the Bar on Welfare Cess Collection from Developers\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/\",\"name\":\"No Welfare Board, No Cess: SC in Prakash Atlanta v NHAI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Prakash-Atlanta-v-NHAI-BOCW-Cess.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-26T04:30:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-26T05:02:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"The Supreme Court rules in Prakash Atlanta v NHAI that welfare cess under the BOCW Act cannot be levied without constitution of Welfare Boards.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Prakash-Atlanta-v-NHAI-BOCW-Cess.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Prakash-Atlanta-v-NHAI-BOCW-Cess.webp\",\"width\":800,\"height\":533,\"caption\":\"Prakash Atlanta v NHAI BOCW Cess\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"No Welfare Board, No Cess: Supreme Court Reiterates the Bar on Welfare Cess Collection from Developers\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"No Welfare Board, No Cess: SC in Prakash Atlanta v NHAI","description":"The Supreme Court rules in Prakash Atlanta v NHAI that welfare cess under the BOCW Act cannot be levied without constitution of Welfare Boards.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"No Welfare Board, No Cess: Supreme Court Reiterates the Bar on Welfare Cess Collection from Developers","og_description":"The Supreme Court rules in Prakash Atlanta v NHAI that welfare cess under the BOCW Act cannot be levied without constitution of Welfare Boards.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-02-26T04:30:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-26T05:02:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":533,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Prakash-Atlanta-v-NHAI-BOCW-Cess.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"No Welfare Board, No Cess: Supreme Court Reiterates the Bar on Welfare Cess Collection from Developers","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/","name":"No Welfare Board, No Cess: SC in Prakash Atlanta v NHAI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Prakash-Atlanta-v-NHAI-BOCW-Cess.webp","datePublished":"2026-02-26T04:30:26+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-26T05:02:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"The Supreme Court rules in Prakash Atlanta v NHAI that welfare cess under the BOCW Act cannot be levied without constitution of Welfare Boards.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Prakash-Atlanta-v-NHAI-BOCW-Cess.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Prakash-Atlanta-v-NHAI-BOCW-Cess.webp","width":800,"height":533,"caption":"Prakash Atlanta v NHAI BOCW Cess"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/prakash-atlanta-v-nhai-bocw-cess-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"No Welfare Board, No Cess: Supreme Court Reiterates the Bar on Welfare Cess Collection from Developers"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Prakash-Atlanta-v-NHAI-BOCW-Cess.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":248686,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/25\/levy-of-building-cess-on-a-contract-for-supply-and-delivery-of-equipment-and-materials-impermissible-holds-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":376834,"position":0},"title":"Levy of building cess on a contract for supply and delivery of equipment and materials? Impermissible, holds Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"May 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the case where Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd had levied cess on CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited based on CAG report only and had withheld dues in respect of other contracts, the bench of UU Lalit and Indira Banerjee*, JJ has termed such levy a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":80381,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/20\/construction-workers-not-covered-by-the-factories-act-1948-and-are-entitled-to-the-welfare-measure-specifically-provided-under-bocw-act-1996-and-welfare-cess-act-1996\/","url_meta":{"origin":376834,"position":1},"title":"Construction workers not covered by the Factories Act, 1948 and are entitled to the welfare measure specifically provided under BOCW ACT, 1996 and Welfare Cess Act, 1996","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"October 20, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and N.V. Ramana, JJ held that construction workers are not covered by the Factories Act, 1948 and, therefore, are entitled to the welfare measure specifically provided for such workers under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":194224,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/19\/194224\/","url_meta":{"origin":376834,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Symbolic justice\u2019 for construction workers as Supreme Court issues various directions for their welfare","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 19, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: \u201cConstruction workers do not assist only in building infrastructure, but they also assist in building the nation, in their own small way.\u201d After it was brought to the notice of the bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ that under the Building and Other Construction Workers\u2018\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299470,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/17\/labour-cess-not-leviable-supply-materials-jharkhand-high-court-concurs-single-judge\/","url_meta":{"origin":376834,"position":3},"title":"\u2018Labour Cess not leviable on supply of materials for contract distinct from civil works\u2019; Jharkhand High Court concurs with Single Judge Bench","author":"Ridhi","date":"August 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court viewed the levy on consultancy or supply to be a clear deviation from provisions of Cess Act.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"jharkhand high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/jharkhand-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/jharkhand-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/jharkhand-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/jharkhand-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":248188,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/14\/when-can-high-court-entertain-a-writ-petition-notwithstanding-the-availability-of-an-alternative-remedy-supreme-court-explains\/","url_meta":{"origin":376834,"position":4},"title":"When can High Court entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy? Supreme Court explains","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"May 14, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\"The availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case.\"","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":227525,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/25\/labour-ministry-issues-advisory-to-all-states-uts-to-use-cess-fund-for-welfare-of-construction-workers\/","url_meta":{"origin":376834,"position":5},"title":"Labour Ministry issues advisory to all States\/UTs to use Cess fund for — Welfare of Construction Workers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 25, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In the backdrop of outbreak of COVID-19, numerous measures are being taken by the Government to give relief to workers. To support unorganized construction workers who sustain their livelihood on daily wages, an advisory\u00a0 has been issued by Shri Santosh Kumar Gangwar, Union Minister of State, I\/C, Labour and Employment\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legislation Updates"","block_context":{"text":"Legislation Updates","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376834","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=376834"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376834\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/376842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=376834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=376834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=376834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}