This writ petition challenged determination and appellate orders under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. The High Court found no arbitrariness or illegality as the authorities considered evidence and allowed participation. The petition was dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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 SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.4051 OF 2012(F)
PETITIONER:
1 M.V.THOMAS AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE VARGHESE, MANNAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENDUVAZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM.
2 ADDL.P2.BIJOY THOMAS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. LATE M.V.THOMAS, MANNAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUKADAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.06.2020 IN IA NO. 6593/2014.
BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER. KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKER'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -25.
R1 SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.4051 OF 2012(F) 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of March 2021
This writ petition was originally filed by one M.V.Thomas, challenging the Ext.P3 Determination Order and Ext.P4 Order in appeal under the provisions of Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. During the pendency of the writ petition the writ petitioner died and consequently his son was impleaded as additional petitioner No.2. The sum and substance of the contention advanced in the writ petition is that the primary authority as well as the appellate authority erred egregiously while passing the Determination Order as well as the Appellate Order since the workers included as per the Determination Order are not the workers/employees of the writ petitioner. In effect the contentions raised in the writ petition are surrounded by various facts and circumstances which were sorted out by the primary authority under the provisions of the statute.
WP(C).No.4051 OF 2012(F) 3
taking into account various facts and circumstances and evidence tendered by the workers and the owner of the Motor transport. It is also clear from Ext.P3 that the owner of the vehicle has not adduced any evidence on the other hand he was represented through a third person. In effect after appreciating the evidence, both documentary and oral the, Authority came to a definite conclusion that the workers except one Varghese who secured employment in KSRTC are entitled to be the members of the Workers Welfare Fund and the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay contribution to the Welfare Fund. On appreciation of Ext.P3 it is clear that it was passed after providing sufficient opportunity of participation to the petitioner. In Ext.P4 Order the Government has considered the matter elaborately and it was after re-appreciating the findings rendered by the primary authority and taking into account all documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties before the Government the findings were arrived at. On a reading of Ext.P4 I have no hesitation to hold that the Government has considered the issue thread base and has arrived at the conclusion that there is no illegality in the order passed by the primary authority. The petitioner has not
WP(C).No.4051 OF 2012(F) 4
advanced any case in this writ petition that the petitioner was not heard or sufficient opportunity was not provided to the petitioner while conducting the proceedings by the primary authority as well as the appellate authority.
In that view of the matter and bearing in mind that a writ court while considering the legality and correctness of any order passed by the statutory authorities, shall confine itself as to whether there is any arbitrariness or illegality in the orders passed by the statutory authority. From the pleadings and materials available on record I could not come across any illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the official respondents in conducting the proceedings to arrive at the conclusions. Needless to say the writ petition has no sustenance and is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE
LEK
WP(C).No.4051 OF 2012(F) 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 21/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 03.07.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 26.11.2003, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2010, OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the determination and appellate orders under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund were arbitrary or illegal by depriving workers of welfare fund membership.
Whether the statutory authorities failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner before passing the orders.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.V. Thomas
Addl. P2. Bijo Thomas
State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to Government, Labour and Rehabilitation Department
District Executive Officer, Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board, Ernakulam
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
