Delhi High Court Allows Death Claim Filed By Building Worker's Widow, Says Board Secretary Can Condone Delay In Annual Contribution Payment

“…this Court finds it fit case to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to allow the claim made by the Petitioner, who is the widow and is claiming benefit under the Act, which is a beneficial legislation”, Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.

The petitioner had approached the court assailing an order denying her death benefits in respect of her husband, late Banwari Lal, who worked as a Raj Mistri and was registered as a beneficiary under the Act.

The reason behind rejection of the petitioner's application was that her husband was not a live member at the time of his death.

The petitioner's case was that her husband died of cancer in 2021, but he was regular in making annual contribution payments from the time he got registered (2011) till 2018. Post 2018, as there was an extreme shortage of staff in the respondent/department, her husband's registration could not be renewed.

It was highlighted that about 5 lakh workers who were registered as beneficiaries till 2018 had lost their registration at the time.

So far as the petitioner also sought restoration of the membership, her counsel drew attention of the court to the proviso to Section 17 of the Act, as per which the Board Secretary can allow restoration of membership if he is satisfied that non-payment of contribution was for a reasonable ground, subject to deposit of contribution in arrears.

The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that cessation of membership was a consequence of continuous non-payment of membership fee for 1 year or more.

After hearing rival submissions, the court took note of an order passed in Sunil Kumar Aledia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., pursuant to which registration processes of construction workers were put in place.

It was opined that earlier, there was indeed dearth of personnel in the respondent/department and people faced genuine difficulties. Besides, the petitioner's husband contracted cancer in 2020 and died in 2021.

Observing that the Act was a beneficial legislation to be construed liberally, and that the Board Secretary had power to condone delay in payment of membership fee, the court held that the petitioner could not be left remediless, especially considering that her husband was not negligent in payment of fee for 7 years.

“It cannot be said that the Petitioner's husband was negligent in paying the amount in view of the fact that he was regular in making payments from 2011 to 2018, i.e., 7 years, and for workers like the Petitioner's husband, the benefit of the Act must be given”, it said.

Allowing the petition, the court remarked that failure to grant benefit to the petitioner would defeat the very purposes for which the Act was enacted.

Advocate Chirayu Jain appeared for petitioner

Advocates Shaurabh Yadav and Abhay Dixit appeared for respondent

Case Title: Geeta v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1229