AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard Shir D.J. Naik, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. By consent of learned advocates appearing for parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal. Perused the case papers.
Petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his application filed in terms of Rule 49 of Building and Other Construction Workers'' Karnataka Rules (for short ''Rules'') for release of financial assistance for his marriage is before this Court questioning the said endorsement dated 17.07.2013 Annexure - A.
Petitioner is a registered member of the Construction Workers'' Board as per the identity card Annexure - B issued to him and he is said to have paid contributions up to January 2016. Seeking financial assistance for his marriage in the year 2012 i.e., on 17.03.2012 he filed an application before the 1st respondent for grant of financial assistance in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- enclosing the requisite documents. However, said application came to be rejected vide amendment dated 17.07.2013 Annexure - A on the ground that it is in contravention of Rule 49 of the Rules namely as on date of marriage, petitioner had not paid 9 months subscription. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
It is the contention of Shri D.J. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when petitioner has been enrolled as a member of Construction Workers'' Board he would be entitled for grant of financial assistance for his marriage and respondents were not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on hyper technical ground.
Per contra, Shri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the impugned endorsement issued to petitioner would contend that petitioner had not paid all the dues as on the date of submitting the application and as such, petitioner''s application has been rightly rejected under clause (c) of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 49 of the Rules and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Authorities. Hence, he prays for rejection of the writ petition.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers, this Court is of the considered view that Rule 49 as well as Rule 21 which has bearing on the claim of petitioner requires to be noticed and as such, they are extracted herein below:
"21-A. Composition of the Board. -
(1) Every construction worker whose name has been registered as a beneficiary under sub-rule (1) of Rule 20 shall contribute a monthly subscription of Rs. 10/- per month, which shall be remitted half yearly to the Board.
(2) If a beneficiary commits defaults in the payment of contribution, continuously for a period of one year, he shall cease to be the beneficiary of the fund. However, with the permission of the Secretary or an officer authorized by him in this behalf, the membership may be resumed on repayment of arrears of contribution with a fine of Rs. 2/- per month, subject to the condition that such resumption shall not be allowed more than twice.
Assistance for the 1st marriage of the registered building or construction worker or his/her two dependent children. - (1) The Secretary or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the Board, shall on an application from a registered construction worker, sanction a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as assistance to meet the marriage expenses of the worker or his/her two dependent children.
(2) The amount shall be sanctioned only if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:
(a) a minimum of one year shall have lapsed from the date of registration of the applicant to the date of marriage of the applicant''s son or daughter for whose marriage the assistance is sought;
(b) the family of a registered construction worker can avail this assistance only twice;
(c) the registered construction worker shall have no dues payable to the Board; and
(d) the son or daughter of the registered construction worker, for whose marriage the assistance is sought, shall have attained the age prescribed by law for marriage.
The application for claiming the amount specified in sub-rule (1) shall be in Form XXIII."
Perusal of above Rules would indicate that to meet the marriage expenses of a worker or his/her two dependent children the enrolled member can submit an application to the Secretary of the Board for sanction of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Sub Rule (2) of Rule 49 would indicate that such amount is to be sanctioned if the conditions enumerated in clause (a) to (c) of sub Rule (2) of Rule 49 are satisfied by an applicant.
In the instant case, Authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that clause (c) was attracted namely as on the date of filing of application, petitioner was due in his subscription of 9 months and as such, his application came to be rejected.
There is no dispute that petitioner is a registered member of the Construction Workers'' Board and this is evidenced by the identity card issued to him by the State Welfare Board which is constituted under the extant Rules as evidenced from Annexure - B. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 21-A would indicate that every construction worker whose name has been registered as a beneficiary under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 20 is required to contribute a monthly subscription of Rs. 10/- and it should be remitted half yearly to the Board. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 21-A also enable the beneficiary to renew the lapsed membership namely membership can be resumed on repayment of entire arrears with fine of Rs. 2/- per month and such revival of the membership will not be more than twice. It would also indicate that if a beneficiary commits default in the payment of contribution continuously for period of one year, he would seize to be a beneficiary.
Keeping the above Rules in mind when facts on hand are examined, it would indicate that petitioner was undisputedly due in payment of 9 months subscription as on date of filing his applications seeking financial assistance for his marriage. However, he had not lost his right of membership. Even otherwise, Board by accepting the fine and also on receiving the arrears of contribution paid by the workman, it has renewed his membership. In fact Board has also received the contributions of 9 months which was due from petitioner - workman. In other words, it has accepted the plea of workman about the default and waived such default by receiving the contribution along with fine and thereby renewed his membership.
In that view of the matter, petitioner cannot be considered as a defaulter and thereby he would be entitled to claim financial assistance from the Board to meet his marriage expenses. In view of the fact that Board itself has accepted the arrears of contribution and revived his membership, reasons assigned by the authorities to reject the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Hence, the following order:
"(i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Annexure - A dated 17.07.2013 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby quashed.
(iii) Respondent is hereby directed to process the application of petitioner and release the amount of Rs. 5,000/- as provided under Sub Rule (1) of the Rule 49 of the Rules, if the petitioner is not otherwise disentitled to and subject to there being no other embargo for sanctioning the request made in the application.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
(v) Said exercise shall be undertaken by 1st respondent expeditiously at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order."