Allowed

U.P.Thyagu v. Welfare Fund Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

Kerala HC12 Feb 2015WP(C)/3652/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking refund of security deposit remitted for toddy workers challenged refusal by Treasury Officer due to missing licensee consent. Court directed refund excluding unknown licensee's share within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to process the application and pay the security amount excluding the fifth respondent's share within one month.

U.P.Thyagu Vs Welfare Fund Inspector, Toddy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/23RD MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 3652 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

U.P.THYAGU, S/O.UPENDRAN, CHANDU NIVAS, NJEKKADU, VADASSERIKONAM P O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, PARUTHIYAZHIKATHU, KOLLAM.

¶9

SAJIV, S/O.SASI, THAKIDI VILAKATH, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM, KOLLAM.

¶10

SUBI, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, SAJI VILASOM, ALAPPATT, KEEZHTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE, POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

TREASURY OFFICER, TREASURY OFFICE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE EDXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONER OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

BABUJAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KALANJOOR P O, ADOOR-689 645.

¶18

R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN R1 BY ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

APPENDIX IN WP(C).No. 3652 of 2015 (F)

¶21

PETITIONER'S' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT. P1:-TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶23

EXT. P2:-TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20/10/2014

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶27

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶28

W.P.(C)No.3652 of 2015 F

¶29

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2015

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, as well as the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶32

Briefly stated, the petitioners and the fifth respondent, being the licencees for running toddy shops in Group I of Varkala Range, remitted an amount of ` 2,88,000/- towards security of wages and other benefits of toddy workers. When the licence came to an end, the petitioners applied to respondents 2 and 3 for refund of the security amount. As could be seen from Exhibit P2 issued by the third respondent, the petitioners have produced

¶33

WPC 3652/15

¶34

¶35

certificates from the Toddy Workers Unions stating that they have paid the entire wages and other benefits to the workers and no arrears are outstanding against them in that regard.

¶36

The second respondent has, however, refused to return the security amount on the ground that petitioners have not obtained the consent of the fifth respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, though the fifth respondent was a colicencee, presently his whereabouts are not known and that the petitioners are claiming the amount proportionate to their share. He has further submitted that the second respondent can pay the amount to the petitioners excluding the share of the fifth respondent, so that no prejudice is caused.

¶38

WPC 3652/15 3

¶39

In the facts and circumstances, since the

¶40

petitioners do not have any statutory liability, it serves the interest of justice if a direction is given to the second respondent to the following effect:

¶41

The second respondent shall process the petitioners' application and, if there are no other statutory constrains, pay to the petitioners the security amount, excluding the proportionate share of the fifth respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶44

tkv

U.P.Thyagu v. Welfare Fund Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P.Thyagu v. Welfare Fund Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

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

Dr.a.C.Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar K Vs the Chief Secretary

Stanley Rapheal Vs State of Kerala

Martin Vs Cheranallur Grama Panchayath

M.I.Shajahan Vs Alice George

K.K.John Vs Municipal Corporation