IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3506 OF 2025 Between: M/s The Ramco Cements Ltd., Having its unit at, Kalvatala Village, Kolimigunda Mandal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh-518123 Rep, by its President Administration Sri. S. Ramaraj. ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. A.P. 2. The Cess Assessment Officer and The Joint Commissioner of Labour Zone-IV, Kurnool. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ. Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice vide Rc.No.B2/B&OCW/1865/2020 dated 25.11.2024 issued by the 2nd Respondent directing the Petitioner Company to pay a sum of Rs. 15 crores towards Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess, even after payment of cess on construction works as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to principles of natural justice besides being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and conditions of services) Act, 1996 and the Building and other construction workers welfare Cess Act, 1996 and the Cess rules 1998 and consequently set- aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice issued by the 2nd Respondent vide RC.NO.B2/B&OCW/1865/2020 dated 25.11.2024 pending disposal of the present writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010063942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3506/2025 Between: M/s The Ramco Cements Ltd., ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of 1. India seeking the following relief: “to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particuiariy in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice vide Rc.No. B2/B and OCW/1865/2020, dated 25.11.2024 issued by the 2"^ Respondent directing the Petitioner Company to pay a sum of Rs.15 crores towards Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess even after payment of cess on construction works as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, illegal without jurisdiction contrary to principles of natural justice besides being violative of Articles 14 and 19(l)g of the Constitution of India and also contraryto the provisions of The Building and Other Construction Workers Regulation of Employment and conditions of services Act 1996 and the Building and other construction workers welfare Cess Act 1996 and the Cess rules 1998 and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders...” Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 2. Government Pleader for Labour and Employment Department appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 3. cement industry, is proceeding with the construction of another cement factory in Kalvatala Village, Kolimigunda Mandal, Nandyal District, with a project cost of Rs. 1,500 crores. In pursuance of the memo issued by the 2"^^ respondent on 01.11.2024, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 23.11.2024, stating that out of the total project cost of Rs. 1,500 crores, Rs. 288 crores is allocated for civil and building construction, while the remaining amount is allocated towards the cost of land, plant, and machinery. He further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that the provisions of the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996, and the Cess Rules, 1998, made thereunder, are applicable and 4. leviable only on construction or civil works and not on the entire project cost. Specifically, the cost of land and plant and machinery cannot be classified as building or civil works. The petitioner contends that the allocation of costs in this manner is contrary to the provisions of the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Act, 1996. Hence, the present writ petition. He further submits that, as per the project cost estimations, the civil works amount to only Rs.288,05,17,393/- and at the rate of 1%, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.2.88 crores as labour cess. Out of this, the petitioner has already paid Rs.2,67,54,450/- towards the labour cess to the respondents, leaving a balance of Rs.20,50,724/- to be paid. However, contrary to the settled preposition of law, the respondents are demanding Rs.15 crores at the rate of 1% on the entire project cost, including the cost of land and plant and machinery. This demand is arbitrary, high-handed. 5. •» and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the issuance of the notice dated 24.11.2024 is also in violation of the provisions of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the Labour and Employment Department, appearing for the respondents, submits that the notice merely directs the petitioner to submit the information as requested in a tabular form under headings 1 to 9 to delineate or divide the cost of building and other civil works from other works. He further submits that the impugned notice does not propose any action or coercive steps against the petitioner and simply requests the submission of further information. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for 7. the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Labour and Employment Department appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that, without going into the merits of the case, the present Writ Petition can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit the information as requested by the respondents. Since the impugned notice merely requests the petitioner to provide information and does not propose any further action, so the petitioner is at liberty to comply with the notice dated 25.11.2024 by submitting the information as requested within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receiving the said information, the 2^^ respondent is directed to M consider the same and provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within a period of eight (08) weeks. In the meantime, the respondents shall not initiate any pursuant to the impugned notice dated 25.11.2024. above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There action 8. With the shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ Consequently petition shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Tllil Pwiicrpel Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment, Secretariat, Vela^apudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. A.P. 2. The Cess Assessment Officer and The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-IV, Kurnool. 3. One CC to Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3506 of 2025 SfAMDH, 'z 21 MAK IC; . Current aeciion DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS