The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a fresh welfare fund contribution order. It held that re-argument on employee inclusion was not open given prior decisions. Permission to pay the balance in instalments was granted.
Permission granted to pay the balance amount in three equal monthly instalments commencing 15.4.2010.
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 K.SURENDRA MOHAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932
WP(C).No. 3656 of 2010(F)
PETITIONER(S):
AIPU JOSEPH,S/O.JOSEPH,AGED 54 YEARS,
PANKETH HOUSE,ELAMKULAM,VYTTILA,KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KOCHI-19.
BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.P.V.LONACHAN
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R1
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
WP(C).NO. 3656 OF 2010
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was the Managing Partner of a firm, which was operating Stage Carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KCE-2970, along with other partners. The petitioner was the registered owner of the Stage Carriage. As per the terms of the partnership deed, the partners were to work as Driver, Conductor, Door Checker, etc without any remuneration, but on the basis of share of profits. Other workers were also engaged on temporary basis. The complaint of the petitioner is that without considering any of the above facts, the first respondent has passed final determination orders for the years 1989 to 1996 under the provisions of Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985(hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short), which are produced as Exts.P2 and P2(A) respectively. Though the petitioner challenged the said determination orders in statutory appeals filed by him, the appeals were dismissed by Exts.P3 and P3(A) orders.
Wpc 3656/2010
2
court challenging the determination orders passed against him. As per judgment dated 29.7.2009, the impugned orders were set aside and fresh orders were directed to be passed. Accordingly, Ext.P5 order has been passed, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
Wpc 3656/2010
3
determination was found to be justified. The only question on which fresh orders were directed to be passed by this court was regarding the coverage of the partners as workers. Therefore, it is pointed out that there are no grounds to interfere with Ext.P5.
“But, with respect to the other employees, there is absolutely no materials to arrive at any conclusion that the findings arrived at by the 2nd respondent based on evidence, which is confirmed in appeal, is erroneous or improper
Wpc 3656/2010
4
in any manner”.
Wpc 3656/2010
5
Ext.P5 in three equal monthly instalments starting from 15.4.2010, the subsequent instalments to be paid on the 15th of every succeeding month. It is made clear that the first respondent would be free to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law to recover the amounts due in the event of default on the part of the petitioner to pay any one of the instalments.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the fresh determination order regarding worker contributions is sustainable.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay the determined balance amount in instalments.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aipu Joseph
The District Executive Officer, Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board
State of Kerala
K. Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
