IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP.No. 12679 of 1998(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LOHITHAKSHAN.A.K., S/O.KUTTAPPAN, ATHIYARATH HOUSE, P.O.POOPATHY, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPROT WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR DIST. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), KODUNGALLUR TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR. 4. N.K.PREMACHANDRAN, S/O.KUMARAN, NARANATTU HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM. R2&R3 BY G.P. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON 07/12/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.22195/1998 IN O.P. NO.12679/1998 DISMISSED: 7.12.2010 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DT.30.8.97 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE ISSUED BY R1 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 14.9.1992 TO 14.9.1993. P2: TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL DETERMINATION ORDER DT.23.7.97 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES ISSUED BY R1. P3: TRUE COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DT.23.7.97 ISSUED BY R1. P4: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.9.6.1998 ISSUED BY R3. P5: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2 AND R3 AGAINST EXT.P4. TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.12679 of 1998 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Challenge is against revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund in respect of a stage carriage which was owned and operated by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, without transferring the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, possession was given to the 4th respondent on 15.9.1993 and therefore, 4th respondent is liable. The petitioner has stated that the 4th respondent is called upon to pay Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund for the same vehicle and for that purpose he has filed O.P. No.8291/1998 wherein petitioner herein is the 4th respondent. However, on verifying with the Registry it is seen that this court has disposed of O.P. No.8291/1998 directing enquiry in the matter and the further direction therein is that if petitioner in that O.P. was operating the vehicle and he has given statement in that respect, then he is liable to pay Welfare Fund contribution for the workers and the same is recoverable from him. The question of liability on 2 petitioner herein or the 4th respondent in the disposed of O.P., will depend on as to who was operating the vehicle with the employees. Since parties are the same in both the O.Ps., I feel the earlier judgment should squarely apply herein as well. I, therefore, dispose of the O.P. directing the first respondent to determine liability after fresh enquiry based on the observations and findings in the judgment in O.P. No.8291/1998 after hearing both the parties and if required, after taking evidence from the employees. If liability is not finalised in terms of the judgment in the other case, then fresh enquiry should be completed without any delay and recovery should be based on the revised adjudication orders or based on adjudication orders if already issued. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms