New Delhi, Jul 15 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has said that pendency of large number of applications for registration and renewal before the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare (BOCWW) Board "paint a grim picture" as all those labourers would not be receiving the ex-gratia which they are entitled to "in these trying times".

"The disclosed figures paint a grim picture as a very large number of applications for fresh registration, as well as for renewals, are still pending.

Also Read | CBSE Results 2020: PM Modi Congratulates Students For Passing Class 10, 12 Exams, Tweets Special Message For Those Disappointed.

"The pendency of these applications means that a large workforce of building workers – who may be entitled to receive the ex gratia amount disbursed by the Board, are being denied the said amounts in these trying times," the high court said.

A bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rajnish Bhatnagar said the backlog can be cleared within two weeks with the help of around 100 legal aid lawyers offered by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) for verification of the applications.

Also Read | Meghalaya: CM Conrad Sangma Bars Wedding Receptions in East Khasi Hills and Ri Bhoi Districts Amid Rise in COVID-19 Cases.

However, the high court's suggestion to use the lawyers has hit a bump as the Board expressed difficulty in paying the honorarium of Rs 1,800 per day, as fixed by DSLSA, to each of the advocates.

The Board, represented by Delhi government additional standing counsel Sanjoy Ghose, said that under the BOCWW Act in any given financial year the payment of salaries and other administrative expenses are not to exceed five per cent of its total expenditure in that financial year.

He said that the payment of honorarium would breach the five per cent statutory limit.

The high court said that DSLSA cannot be burdened with the cost as neither it not the lawyers are supposed to carry out verification of the applications which is squarely the Board's responsibility.

The bench further said that the backlog of forms has increased due to shortage of competent persons in the Board to handle the work and therefore, it should take DSLSA's offer keeping in view the workers plight.

It said that taking into account the amount already spent by the Board in the current financial year and monies it is likely to disburse to workers in the coming months, the five per cent limit may not be breached, even if it were to pay the honorarium to the advocates provided by the DSLSA. 

The court, in its order passed on Tuesday (July 14), also observed that the amount of Rs 1,800 per day per lawyer was much lesser than what the Board would pay its officials and asked it to examine the aspect and inform the bench on the next date of hearing on July 17.       The direction came while hearing a PIL by social activist Sunil Kumar Aledia seeking registration of all construction workers here under the BOCWW Act so that they can get the benefit of the relief package of Rs 5,000 per month being provided to each labourer during the lockdown.

Aledia in his plea, filed through advocate Shiven Varma, has contended that only a small section out of the over 10 lakh workers in the city are registered under the laws regulating their welfare and service conditions and thus, a huge chunk of the labourers are not getting benefits actually meant for them.

The bench, in its order of July 14, also issued several other directions like the applications should not be rejected only on account of non-disclosure of online banking facility while mentioning bank particulars in the forms.

It said the applicant should be made aware that he would not be able to receive the funds, unless he provides the MICR/ IFSC details and added that it should be possible for the applicant to update these particulars even at a later stage, i.e. after submission of form for registration/ renewal and its grant.  

The high court was also of the view that "there was no justification" for requiring an applicant to submit the proof of date of birth at the time of renewal. 

With regard to the requirement of giving proof of the present address of the worker, the bench said these labourers by their very nature are nomadic, and they move from site to site for their work, and also move their residences to a place close to their construction site. 

Even if they produce any one or more of the various documents listed out by the Board, "it is likely that they would not correctly reflect their present address," the high court said.

During the hearing on Tuesday, the court was informed that the Board was rejecting applications without giving any reason.

On this aspect, the bench asked the Board to place before it the particulars of all applications which have been rejected and the reasons for rejection.

"Henceforth, it should be ensured that a summary of the reasons for rejection should be provided in each case where the application has been returned/ rejected," the high court directed.

The petition has contended that despite collection of over Rs 2,000 crore under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act in the names of lakhs of workers, only around 37,127 construction labourers who are registered are getting the benefits.

It has also claimed that there has been gross under-registration of construction workers in the national capital since 2015. PTI HMP SKV 

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)