A petition challenging a rejected appeal regarding liability for toddy workers welfare fund contributions. The court held the appeal challenge was not maintainable due to no power to condone delay and dismissed the petition on merits as no infirmity was found in the determination order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1929 OP.No. 4683 of 2002(G) ----------------------
PETITIONER:
K.V.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE VALAYI, KALLADA HOUSE, THANISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
*SMT. K.S.THANKAM, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. LATE K.V.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALLADA HOUSE, THANISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (*IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 21/02/2006 IN I.A. NO. 2400/06).
BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2007, THE COURT ON 12/11/2007 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP NO. 4683/2002
ORDER ON CMP NO. 8383/2002 IN OP NO. 4683/2002
DISMISSED.
12/11/2007
SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
P1 : COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 20/06/2001 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P2 : COPY OF the APPEAL DATED 03/01/2002 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
P3 : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 03/01/2002 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
P4 : COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 03/01/2002 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2002 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
P6 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/12/2001 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
// TRUE COPY //
PA TO JUDGE.
jg
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
O.P. No. 4683 of 2002
Dated, this the 12th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for 4th respondent.
Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Board Vs. Government of
Kerala , reported in 2001 (1) KLT 608. In the circumstances, challenge against Ext.P5 is not maintainable.
O.P.No. 4683/2002
-2-
in the toddy shops along with the licensees and recovered welfare fund contributions from the employees. The above findings are based on evidence from the employees, their union etc. There is no scope for entertaining challenge against Ext.P1, because liability towards toddy workers’ welfare fund is demanded from those who were running toddy shops as employers. Since petitioner along with others were found to have carried on business in all the toddy shops, there is no scope for entertaining challenge against the adjudication proceedings. I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P1, which is made based on evidence collected from the employees. This original petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)
jg
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge a rejected appeal against a final determination order on the ground of delay.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the merit of an order imposing liability for toddy workers welfare fund contributions carried on by the petitioner.
Whether the original petition has any merit given the findings of liability based on employee testimony.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Board Vs. Government of KeralaDistinguished¶40
Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Board Vs. Government of Kerala, 2001 (1) KLT 608
K.V. Ramakrishnan
K.S. Thankam
The Welfare Fund Inspector-II, Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board, Trissur
M.V. Sukumaran
O.N. Satheesan
The Secretary, Laboaur & Rehabilitation (B) Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
