Discuss the constitutional validity of "Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act' with the help of decided cases.

Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 was enacted to regulate the employment and conditions of service and to provide for safety, health and welfare measures for construction workers in the country and for other matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. The constitutional validity of the BOCW Act and the Cess Act was challenged in the Delhi High Court by the Builders Association of India. As regards the BOCW Act it was contended that it is bad for vagueness and as far as the Cess Act is concerned, it was contended that the cess is a compulsory and involuntary exaction without reference to any special benefit for the payer of the cess and therefore the cess was in fact a tax. It was contended that Parliament lacked legislative competence to impose a tax on lands and buildings which was the effect of the Cess Act. In Builders Association of India v. Union of India, ILR (2007) 1 Del 1143 the contentions urged were repelled by the Delhi High Court and the constitutional validity of the BOCW Act and the Cess Act was upheld. The decision of the Delhi High Court was challenged and that challenge was repelled in Dewan Chand Builders & Contractors v. Union of India (2012) 1 SCC 101 . The Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of both the Acts, noted the scheme of the BOCW Act in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution and observed as follows: "It is thus clear from the scheme of the BOCW Act that its sole aim is the welfare of building and construction workers, directly relatable to their constitutionally recognised right to live with basic human dignity, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It envisages a network of authorities at the Central and State levels to ensure that the benefit of the legislation is made available to every building and construction worker, by constituting Welfare Boards and clothing them with sufficient powers to ensure enforcement of the primary purpose of the BOCW Act. The means of generating revenues for making effective the welfare provisions of the BOCW Act is through the Cess Act, which is questioned in these appeals as unconstitutional." The interpretation of the BOCW Act and the Cess Act was again considered in A. Prabhakara Reddy and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 1 SCC 600 . The emphasis in this case was on registering the construction workers and providing them necessary benefits. Since the levy of cess is a fee, it was urged that urgent steps should be taken for implementation of the two Acts. It was further observed that merely because there was some delay in the effective implementation of both the statutes it could not be a ground for invalidating the levy of cess, nor could the levy of cess be said to have retrospective application.