Registered construction workers' dependents are entitled to statutory death benefits under BOCW Act welfare schemes.

The petitioner, Anuj Kumar Rastogi, is the son of late Rajendra Kumar, who was a registered labourer with the Uttarakhand Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (Registration No. 050302799331660)

The petitioner’s father died a natural death on October 17, 2025

Under a welfare scheme established pursuant to the Building and Other Construction Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, nominees of deceased registered workers are entitled to financial assistance

The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs for the natural death of his father, relying on Para 4 of the welfare scheme

While the petitioner asserted that an online application had been moved, Respondent No. 2 contended that the date of application was not disclosed in the writ petition

Five similar petitions involving common questions of law and fact were clubbed together for disposal

Whether the dependents of a deceased registered worker are entitled to financial assistance under the Building and Other Construction Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, and the welfare schemes framed thereunder

Whether the petitioner followed the requisite procedure for claiming the benefit and what directions are necessary to resolve the procedural dispute

The Court applied the provisions of the Building and Other Construction Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, and the associated government welfare schemes

Under these regulations, a registered worker’s nominee is entitled to Rs. 3 lakhs in the event of a natural death and Rs. 5 lakhs if the death occurs during the course of work

The Court examined the petitioner’s status as a dependent of a registered construction worker and the applicability of the 1996 Act’s welfare provisions

It noted that the petitioner sought Rs. 3 lakhs based on his father’s natural death, a claim supported by the documents produced

Addressing the dispute raised by Respondent No. 2 regarding the application filing, the Court found it necessary to "cut short the controversy" rather than adjudicate on the validity of the previous online application

The Court reasoned that since the scheme prima facie entitles the petitioner to the benefit, a directed procedural step (filing an offline application) would ensure administrative verification and timely disbursement

It directed the petitioner to submit an offline application to Respondent No. 2 within ten days

Respondent No. 2 was ordered to decide the application and verify legal entitlement within a period of three months

All connected writ petitions were disposed of with identical directions