2026:UHC:2690 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/736/2026 WPMS/735/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J Mr. Eshan Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2. 2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 736 of 2026 alone are being considered and discussed here. 3. In both the writ petitions, petitioners have challenged order dated 6.12.2025, passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner under the provisions of Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996. By the impugned order, both the petitioners have been asked to deposit ₹27,27,307/- as labour cess. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner is a proprietorship firm, although in para 2 of the writ petition, it is pleaded that petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The GST Certificate, however, refers the petitioner as proprietorship firm. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there are three separate industries, namely, (i) Creative Industries, (ii) Creative Plastopack and (iii) Creative Proplast (respondent no. 6) and except M/s Creative Proplast, other two industries are having manufacturing unit in Sector 3, IIE, SIDCUL, Haridwar. It is contended that the Assistant Labour Commissioner has passed the impugned order, levying labour cess 2026:UHC:2690 amounting to ₹27,27,307/- on both the petitioners, with total non-application of mind and in the impugned order, the address has been indicated as Plot No. 5 and 5A, Sector 3, IIE, SIDCUL, Haridwar. 5. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, submits that notice was given to both the petitioners, but they did not respond to the notice, therefore ex parte orders were passed against them, asking them to deposit the labour cess as determined in the impugned order. He, however, concedes that there is a mistake in the impugned orders, inasmuch as both the orders were passed in the name of Creative Proplast. 6. Mr. Eshan Sachdeva, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, disputes the contention raised by Mr. Bhatia and submits that, in fact, only one order was passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and not two orders, as alleged by Mr. Bhatia. 7. In view of the concession recorded by Mr. Bhatia that the orders impugned in these writ petitions are erroneous and are liable to be set aside, the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders and the recovery certificates, issued consequent to impugned orders, are set aside. Competent authority, however, shall be at liberty to pass fresh order, as per law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 16.4.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d 462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA5 8C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.04.16 17:46:01 +05'30' 2026:UHC:2690