Dismissed

Annie Jose v. the Secretary

Kerala HC29 Nov 2007WP(C)/16742/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery proceedings for motor transport workers welfare fund contributions for years 1998-2000. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the adjudication was based on accurate statements that the vehicle was operated by the petitioner with four workers, leaving no merit for interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no interference with demand of welfare fund contribution for four workers.

Annie Jose Vs the Secretary — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 16742 of 2005(R) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

SMT. ANNIE JOSE, PUTHUSSERY, VALLUVALLY, KOONAMMAVU,ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

THE SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, N. PARAVOOR.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 1.8.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED NIL.

¶22

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.10.2000 OF THE SECRETARY, RTA. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.7.2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.3.2005 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶25

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶26

W.P.C. NO. 16742 OF 2005

¶27

Dated this the 29th day of November, 2007

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of motor transport workers welfare fund contribution demanded for the years from 1998 to 2000 for four workers. Even though petitioner has put forward a case of partnership with her brothers, it is clear from the statement filed by respondents and the order of adjudication and order in appeal that adjudication is made on statement filed by petitioner's husband, who was authorised to represent the petitioner. Since the petitioner's husband, her authorised representative, has clearly stated before the second respondent that vehicle was operated by the petitioner for two years and four workers were employed during the said period, there is no justification to interfere with the determination order confirmed in appeal and demand of welfare fund contribution for four workers. W.P. is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed.

¶30

(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge

¶31

Annie Jose v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annie Jose v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Omanakkuttan Pillai Vs Noyal Thomas

C.a.Varughese Vs the Tahsildar

N.J.Chacho Vs the Commr. of Income-Tax,Tvm.

A.K.Menon Vs Tahsildar

Koshy Meleveettil Koshy Vs State of Kerala

C.v.Dileepkumar Vs Dy.Director of Education, Thrissur