Partly allowed

Abdul Salam v. District Executive Officer

Kerala HC2 Sept 2011WP(C)/9209/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dispensed with fact adjudication in a writ petition challenging Motor Workers Welfare Fund contribution demands. The judgment absolute an interim stay order previously stayed recovery and registration, disposing of the matter as an internal family dispute.

What did the court decide?

Interim order made absolute; writ petition disposed of without need for fact adjudication.

Abdul Salam Vs District Executive Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 9209 of 2004(U)

PETITIONERS:

ABDUL SALAM, THYPARAMBIL, PATTIMATTOM P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY.

¶10

THAJUMON, THYPARAMBIL, PATTIMATTOM P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY.

¶11

SHIHAB, THYPARAMBIL, PATTIMATTOM P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY.

¶12

SHIHARUDEEN, THYPARAMBIL, PATTIMATTOM P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY.

¶13

NIZAR, THYPARAMBIL, PATTIMATTOM P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY.

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

RESPONDENTS:

THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM.

¶18

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. SMITHA SUKUMARAN.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 9209 of 2004(U)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE F.D.O. DATED 19.07.2002. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 02.09.2002. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP.5253/03. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 14.03.2003. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.02.2004. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF P.D.O. DATED 05.02.2004.

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

PA TO JUDGE

¶27

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C)No. 9209 OF 2004

¶30

¶31

Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2011

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The issue involved in this writ petition is with regard

¶34

to the liability to satisfy the contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, particularly with respect

¶35

to the demand made from respondents 2 to 5. The 1^st petitioner is the father of other petitioners and the registered owner of vehicles having registration Nos.KL-7/F 6291 and KL5/H 9621. The prayers are as follows:

¶36

“ 1. issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit.P1, P5 and P6 and quash the same.

¶37

2. issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition or such other writ, order or direction restraining the 1^st respondent from proceeding with Exhibit.P6 provisional assessment made in respect of the year 2002-03.

¶38

3. declare that no contributions are payable in respect of petitioners 2 to 5 under section 4 of the Act read with Chapter IV of the KMTWWF in relation to the stage carriages bearing registration numbers KL-7/F 6291 and KL5/H 9621. ”

¶39

When the matter came up for consideration

¶40

WP(C) No. 9209 of 2004

¶41

-:2:-

¶42

before this Court, on 17.03.2004, the following interim order was passed:

¶43

“Shri P.Ramakrishnan takes notice for R1. GP takes notice for R2. There will be stay against recovery of Motor Workers Welfare Fund contribution from the first petitioner in respect of demand pertaining to his children, i.e., petitioners 2 to 5 herein. In view of contest by petitioners 2 to 5 there will be direction to the first respondent not to register their names in the Welfare Fund list of workers, if they are not registered as motor workers. However, if there is registration, recovery will be made.”

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent

¶45

besides the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶46

During the course of hearing it was submitted by either side, that the matter could be disposed of in the light of the interim order, making the same absolute; particularly since the actual dispute stands confined within the same family; namely between the father and the children.

¶47

WP(C) No. 9209 of 2004

¶48

-:3:-

¶49

In the said circumstances this Court finds that no 'fact

¶50

adjudication' is necessary in this case. The interim order is made absolute and the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶51

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶52

ttb

Abdul Salam v. District Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam v. District Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.T.Manikandan Vs Smt.Remadevi

Sibil Raj Vs the Sales Tax Officer, Iind Circle.Alpy.

Deepu.M.R. Vs Sheeja Vijayakumar & Ors.

Kandathil Lakshmi Vs State of Kerala

Shelly Joseph Vs Secretary,Cochin Corporation

Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs Sales Tax Inspector,Kodungallur,Thrissur