Ms Creative Plastopack vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioners, proprietorship firms engaged in manufacturing, challenged an order dated December 6, 2025, passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. This order directed them to deposit ₹27,27,307/- as labour cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996. The petitioners argued that the order was passed with non-application of mind, incorrectly identifying their business entities and addresses. The respondent, through their counsel, conceded that there were mistakes in the impugned orders, specifically that both orders were passed in the name of 'Creative Proplast', despite the petitioners being separate entities. The respondent also stated that ex parte orders were passed as the petitioners did not respond to notices.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petitions. The primary reason for allowing the petitions was the concession made by the respondent's counsel, Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, who acknowledged that there were mistakes in the impugned orders and that they were liable to be set aside. Specifically, it was conceded that both orders were passed in the name of 'Creative Proplast'. The Court found these orders to be erroneous. Consequently, the impugned orders and the recovery certificates issued pursuant to them were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, provided that both petitioners are given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The issue of whether the petitioners failed to respond to notices was implicitly set aside by the order to allow fresh proceedings with an opportunity to be heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 6, 2025, passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, levying labour cess of ₹27,27,307/-, is vitiated by non-application of mind and factual inaccuracies regarding the petitioner's identity and address, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the Assistant Labour Commissioner failed to apply their mind while passing the impugned order. They highlighted discrepancies in the order, including the incorrect address (Plot No. 5 and 5A, Sector 3, IIE, SIDCUL, Haridwar) and the potential misidentification of their business entities, as the GST certificate referred to the petitioner as a proprietorship firm, while the order seemed to conflate different industries. Revenue's contention: The respondent, through their counsel, conceded that there were mistakes in the impugned orders, specifically that both orders were passed in the name of 'Creative Proplast'. They also contended that ex parte orders were passed because the petitioners failed to respond to the notices issued to them.