Allowed

Joseph K.V. v. Kerala Motor Transport Worker Welfare Fund Board

Kerala HC25 Mar 2022WP(C)/9980/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition wherein the petitioner, a bus cleaner due for retirement, challenged the rejection of his application to pay arrears of fund contributions. The Court held that since the petitioner was willing to pay with interest, the Board must accept the amount and issue a no-due certificate to facilitate timely retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to accept arrears with interest within ten days and issue a no-due certificate for the petitioner's retirement benefits.

Joseph K.V. Vs Kerala Motor Transport Worker Welfare Fund Board — Kerala HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 9980 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JOSEPH K.V.,
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. K.O.VAREED,
KURUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, VELUTHUR,
MANAKODI P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680012.

¶7

BY ADVS.
C.HARIKUMAR
SANDRA SUNNY
ARUN KUMAR M.A

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, 1ST FLOOR, DOOR NO 36/1662, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶10

REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶11

2 KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKER WELFARE FUND BOARD, JAYAM BUILDING, MWRA, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM 691 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.K.S.MANU-SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 9980 OF 2022

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Order dated 17.03.2022 of District Executive Officer, Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Board has been challenged whereby the application of the petitioner for payment of the arrears towards the fund from February, 2007 to April, 2022 has been rejected. Petitioner had been working as a Cleaner in a bus bearing Registration No.KL-8/Q 8199 from June, 2005 onwards and had remitted the contribution towards the fund to the membership No.KMT/08/SC/W/2429 till January, 2007. Petitioner had been working upto 2021 as evident from the details of the service of the petitioner Ext.P1. The owner of the bus had already remitted the part of the contribution towards the membership fund but the petitioner who is due retire on 30.04.2022 has arrears of the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) towards the fund which he is willing to pay along with the interest. But the respondent for the reason best known without adverting to any provisions of the Act have rejected the same.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 9980 OF 2022

¶20

-3-

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends

¶22

that once the petitioner has expressed willingness to pay the amount with interest there should not be any difficulty for the respondent to accept the same, so that the petitioner can retire in peace after availing the retirement benefits in time.

¶23

Mr.K.S.Manu, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that the representation had been acceded to and rejected. No explanation has come forward as to why and under what circumstances the arrears could not be paid.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶25

It would be expedient to extract the relevant contents of the impugned order dated 17.03.2022 Ext.P5 which reads as under:

¶26

"It is hereby informed that as per the information given from the respected Chief Executive Officer with respect to item No.2 that, since you will be completing the age of 60 years on 30.04.2022, the arrears of 14 years with effect from 2/2007 to 4/2022 towards employees contribution as mentioned in your

¶27

WP(C) NO. 9980 OF 2022

¶28

-4-

¶29

application preferred as item no.1, cannot be considered as permission cannot be granted to remit the arrears."

¶30

The District Executive Officer has not referred to any provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act for reject the application.

¶31

I am of the view that once the petitioner has expressed his willingness to pay the arrears along with the interest it is for the Welfare Fund Board to receive the same by issuing a no-due certificate so that the petitioner is able to get his retirement benefits in time. The order is thus bereft of the merit much less void and accordingly set aside.

¶32

Writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to accept the arrears as offered by the petitioner along with the interest within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and issue a no-due certificate as the petitioner is retiring on 30.04.2022.

¶33

Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE

¶34

vv

¶35

WP(C) NO. 9980 OF 2022

¶36

-5-

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9980/2022

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF
SERVICE OF PETITIONER AS CLEANER SHOWN
IN THE FORM-3 OF KERALA MOTOR
TRANSPORT WORKERS’ WELFARE FUND
SCHEME, 1985
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2011
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.03.2022
Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
PREFERRED BY THE OWNER OF THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 08.03.2022

¶40

Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
17.03.2022

Joseph K.V. v. Kerala Motor Transport Worker Welfare Fund Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph K.V. v. Kerala Motor Transport Worker Welfare Fund Board

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

T.K.Sundaresan Vs the District Collector

M/S. Vision Academy Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Sudheer Ram S., Vs Biju Prabhakar

K.P. Rajagopalan Vs Renjith v v

Kishore P. George Vs District Labour Officer

Sujith Vijayan Vs Union of India