APHC010391142026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI I.A. No.1 of 2026 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NOs: 916, 917, 918, 919, 920 and 1007 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-5 [3584] The Andhra Pradesh Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, ...Appellant Vs. SMS India Pvt Ltd., and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 24th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: GP FOR LABOUR Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): D S SIVADARSHAN, rep. by Mr.AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL V SUBRAHMANYAM COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present writ appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent assailing common order dated 23.08.2004 in W.P. Nos.13555, 13492, 13546, 13581, 13583 of 2022 and W.P. 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch No.26376 of 2023, whereby learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions, has set aside the impugned demands issued under the provisions of Building and other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1966 (herein after, for short ‘Cess Act’) and Building and Other Constructions Works (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 1996 (herein after, for short ‘BOCW Act’) and with further direction to refund the labour cess deducted from the writ petitioner's bills through its Principal. 2. As the issues raised in all these appeals are one and the same, with the consent of counsel appearing, the appeals are taken up for consideration and disposed by way of common order. 3. (a) 1st respondent/writ petitioner preferred writ petitions challenging the action of respondents 2 to 4 herein in deducting cess under the Cess Act and BOCW Act at the instance of writ appellant, despite authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Utta Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. C.G. Power and Industrial Solutions Limited1, to be illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. (b) 2nd respondent - Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, executed a contract with 1 AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 2411 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch 1st respondent and two other consortium members for establishing Basic Oxygen Furnace Complex. The said contract dated 23.03.2013 envisaged Design, supply, erection, testing, and commissioning the plant, Equipment and Machinery for Basic Oxygen Furnace Complex comprising BOF CONVERTER-3, Primary Gas Cleaning Plant, Secondary Fume Extraction System & Auxiliaries. The composite contract also envisaged RINL to enter into individual contracts separately with each consortium member qua defining the specific scope of work. Accordingly, three agreements, even dated 23.03.2013, were entered into for the purpose of design contract, supply contract and conveyance contract respectively. (c) SMS Siemag Aktiengesellschaft, the principal contractor, was entrusted with the contract for imported supply and services, the consortium member SMS India Private Limited was entrusted with contract for indigenous supply and services and M/s.Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Limited, with contract for indigenous services dealing with construction and civil works. (d) Insofar as the first contract is concerned, no labour cess was levied. First contract merely being for supply of imported designs, engineering, drawings, deputation of foreign technicians etc., 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch rightly no cess was levied, however, for the other two contracts, cess was imposed. Since the contract for indigenous services with M/s.Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Limited encompassed civil and other construction activities, cess was paid in terms of the provisions of the Act. Though the contract for indigenous supply and services entered into with the 1st respondent was merely for supply of designs, engineering, drawings, ocean freight, customs clearance, etc., which did not have any element of construction or civil works, cess was levied and deducted from its bills. Thus, challenging the imposition of cess, 1st respondent/writ petitioner preferred writ petitions. (e) RINL filed counter justifying its stand in deducting cess from the bills of writ petitioner. (f) Learned Single Judge, after considering respective stands pleaded and argued by parties, allowed writ petitions by declaring the action of RINL in issuing impugned demand and deducting the cess amount to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further, directed it to take steps for refund of cess. Furthermore, the Commissioner of Labour, AP Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, has been directed to refund the amount of cess within two months from the date of receipt of communication 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch from RINL, and the writ petitioner was given liberty to approach the appropriate authority for claiming interest. (g) Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are preferred. 4. All these appeals, since are preferred with a delay of 671 days, therefore, learned Counsel for the appellant made submissions regarding the aspect of delay before addressing on the merits. 5. We have heard learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for appellant and Mr.Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.D.S.Sivadarshan, learned counsel for 1st respondent/writ petitioner. 6. (a) Learned counsel for appellant, at the outset, submitted that after disposal of the writ petitions vide common order dated 23.08.2024, copy of the same was dispatched by the Registry on 12.11.2024. Further, in terms of the aforesaid order, though RINL had to communicate the substance of order and request for refund of the amount, the same was submitted only on 31.12.2025 as required in Form I, thus, the appellant thereafter sought legal opinion from Government Pleader and on further advice to prefer appeal, the appellant had to gather required material, which took considerable time. 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch (b) It is also stated that Commissioner of Labour, designated officer, was assigned election duties during the general elections in the State of West Bengal from 18.03.2026 to 04.05.2026, thus, there was further delay in approaching office of Government Pleader for preparing and finalizing writ appeals. (c) In view of aforesaid administrative reasons, appeals were filed with a delay of 671 days, which is neither deliberate, wilful nor wanton, but occurred solely on account of reasons mentioned above, thus, pleaded to condone the delay. 7. (a) Learned Counsel for 1st respondent/writ petitioner, on the other hand, raised a serious objection to condoning the delay. By referring to counter filed in opposition to the applications for condoning the delay, it is stated that the reasons assigned in the application do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such inordinate delay. Except for vague and general averments that appellant had to collect necessary documents and obtain legal opinion, no specific details have been pleaded explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the Court, thus, inordinate delay of 671 days should not be condoned. (b) It is also stated that though the appellant, being a party to the writ proceedings, when there was a specific direction to 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch process the refund and pay the same in a time-bound manner, least expected was to take appropriate immediate steps to file an appeal in case the appellant was serious about the same, merely to drag on the proceedings, an attempt is being made by filing these appeals, therefore, it is urged to dismiss appeals for unexplained and inordinate delay. 8. (a) Insofar as merits of the matter are concerned, learned counsel for appellant, by placing reliance on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of the Composite High Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Lakamsani Samba Siva Rao2, would contend that even the supply of designs, engineering, drawings, supply of indigenous plant, machinery and equipment with auxiliaries, ocean freight, marine insurance, etc., since constitute part and parcel of the principal umbrella contract, cess is leviable on all components, which learned Single Judge failed to appreciate. (b) Learned Counsel for 1st respondent/writ petitioner, on the other hand, sought to rely on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of C.G.Power and Industrial Solutions Limited1 to contend that the provisions of the BOCW Act are made applicable 2 MANU/AP/0694/2015 8 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch in respect of contracts which cover mere civil works and other contracts covering works other than civil works, particularly supply and other components not involving construction would not attract cess, therefore, learned Single Judge rightly decided the issue following ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, which does not call for any interference. 9. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made above and perused the record. We are convinced that these appeals deserve to be dismissed both on the aspect of delay as well as merits. The explanation given by appellant for condoning delay is as under: “8. It is humbly submitted that this Hon'ble High Court passed common orders in WP No.13492 of 2022 and batch of 23.08.2024 and the said copy of the order was dispatched on 12.11.2024. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 has to communicate the substance of the order of this Hon'ble Court and requested to refund the remitted amount. However the appellant not submitted Form I within time and finally submitted on 31.12.2025. The respondent not submitted the said Form I with accurate information, as required under the provisions of the BOCW Act, Cess Act and Rules making reasonable assessment till to date. After 31.12.2025 the appellant collected all the necessary documents and approached the Government Pleader office 9 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch for legal opinion and thereafter obtained permission from the government to file the present appeal. Basing on advice of the learned Government Pleader this appellant gathers all the required materials for filing the present appeal which took sufficient considerable time. Further, the Commissioner of Labour, A.P., Vijayawada, who is kept Secretary & CEO, APBOCW Welfare Board was assigned to look after Election duties during the General Elections in the year of 2026 in the state of West Bengal from the period 18.03.2026 to 04.05.2026. For this reasons as well occurred some delay in approaching the Government Pleader Office to prepare & finalize the writ appeal. The appellant also assigned several other administrative works to prepare and file the present appeal.” 10. The final order in the writ petitions was passed on 23.08.2024, with certain directions. The appellant states that copy of order was dispatched on 12.11.2024 and thereafter, RINL had made application in Form I seeking refund on 31.12.2025. Absolutely, there is no explanation or justification as to what steps were initiated by appellant in the interregnum, when it is also a party to those writ petitions. When we inquired from learned counsel for appellant as to whether any application was submitted for certified copy of the common order, we were informed that no 10 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch such application was ever made, the appellant merely awaited for copy to be communicated from the Registry of the Court. 11. The limitation for filing appeal would commence from the date of passing of the order in the writ petition, of course, the period between the date of application for certified copy and issuance thereafter to be excluded. In the present case, no attempt was ever made to even apply for certified copy, leave about any steps being initiated to file appeal. Even as per the explanation given above, nearly after more than a year, the appellant approached Government Pleader for opinion and the specific details/dates as to when such opinion was furnished and what steps were taken thereafter are conspicuously absent. All appeals came to be preferred only on 27.07.2026. 12. In Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran and another3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows at paragraph Nos.31 and 32: “31. It is a well-stated law that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093 11 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 32. Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasized in several cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present case, the respondents/ defendants have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet.” 13. Though learned counsel for appellant relied on judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst.Katiji and others4 and The State of Odisha & Others v. Saroj Kumar Pradhan5, as the reasons explained to condone the delay are definitely not sufficient, in view of the above settled expression of Hon’ble Apex Court, we are not inclined to persuade ourselves to condone inordinate delay of 671 days. 14. Even on the merits of the matter, the issue raised in these appeals is no longer res integra. In the judgment of C.G. Power and Industrial Solutions Limited1, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with a similar kind of frame work agreement entered into 4 1987 (2) SCC 107 5 SLP (C) No.25212/2024, dated 17.11.2025 12 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. Nos.916 of 2026 & batch between C.G. Power and Industrial Solutions Limited and Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited, which had defined the scope of work which encompassed three independent contracts: one covering works related to design, engineering, manufacturing, supply, etc.; the second covering unloading, handling, erection, testing, and commissioning; and the third covering civil works including material to complete the scope of commissioning and handover of the sub-station, considering the scope and nature of works falling under three different contracts, it was held that cess is payable only in respect of contract covering civil and related works and insofar as other contracts, which do not involve any construction do not attract cess. 15. The ratio laid down above in all fours applies to the case on hand. We, therefore, find no merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed both on the count of delay as well as on merits. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS