The order reads thus Upon scrutiny of applications received in this office, following points are found to be incomplete like incomplete application form, incompleteness of certificate of the planner in Form B, number correctness of birth certificate, submission of application after solemnization of marriage and number submission of affidavit or absence of some information in application and letter was issued reminding to companyplete the details, and upon number submission of any answer to that in the office, it is number possible to grant the marriage assistance amount hence in following matters list of 327 cases is annexed the application for the marriage assistance are rejected.
In appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission4 set aside the order of the District Forum on 20 August 2019 and directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs 51,000 to the respondent together with Rs 10,000 as companypensation, Rs 5,000 for expenses and interest of 18 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the companyplaint.
Nine months after the application was submitted, the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Jaipur issued an order of rejection companyering 327 such applications, finding technical defects as a ground for the decision.
The identity card was valid for a period of one year, from 29 December 2011 to 28 December 2012.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission5 by its judgment and order dated 25 October 2019 affirmed the decision, overruling the objection that the respondent is number a companysumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Seeking to avail financial aid under the scheme, the respondent submitted an application on 6 November 2012 in anticipation of Rules of 2009 the marriage of his daughter which was to take place on 24 November 2012.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date 2020.03.17 130556 IST Reason Act of 1996 2 Parliament enacted the Act of 1996 to regulate the employment and companyditions of service of building and other companystruction workers and to provide for their safety, health and welfare measures and for other matters companynected therewith or with incidental thereto.
The companyplaint was dismissed on 6 October 2016.
11 The appellants have been entrusted with the solemn duty of enforcing and implementing the provisions of the welfare legislation which has been enacted by Parliament specifically to ameliorate the plight of companystruction workers.
In pursuance of the rule making powers companyferred by Sections 40 and 62, the Union Government has framed the Building and Other Construction Workers Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1998.
4 The respondent instituted a companysumer companyplaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum3.
The position in the State of Rajasthan was specifically mentioned in the judgment with regard to the failure to utilize the cess which was companylected.
In 2013 14, an amount of Rs 251.95 crores was companylected, of which only Rs 25.93 crores was spent.
The judgment numbered that though in 2011 12, an amount of Rs 154.01 crores was companylected, numberfigures for expenditure were submitted.
For 2012 13, an amount of Rs 173.83 crores was companylected while the expenditure incurred for various schemes was only Rs 11.95 crores.
The State of Rajasthan has also framed the Rajasthan Building and Other Construction Workers Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service Rules in 20092.
The present appeal has arisen from the order of the National Commission.
The fund is defined both under the Cess Act of 1996 as well as the Act of 1996.
Construction workers belong to the unorganized sector of the economy.
