IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15258 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ V.SAVITHA, W/O.PRABHURAJ, RAJ VIHAR, 10/231, METTUPPALAYAM STREET, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKER'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALAKKAD. 2. MUJBEER RAHMAN.S., S/O.U.S.HAMEED, KUNNEKKADU, OPP.ARTS & SPORTS CLUB, PULASSERY, PALAKKAD. R1 BY ADV.SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI - STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15258 of 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner commenced stage stage operation. According to her, the 2nd respondent, who was never an employee, approached the 1st respondent for getting himself registered under the Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act {for short “the Act”}. 2. The 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner on the application moved by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner appeared and file Ext.P3 statement of objections, inter alia, stating that the question as to whether the 2nd respondent is an employee of the petitioner is actually pending before the District Labour Officer. The 1st respondent proceeded to consider the objections and inter alia taking note of the fact that the petitioner had not produced any materials to rebut the assertions made W.P.(C)No.15258 of 2009 :: 2 :: by the 2nd respondent, proceeded to pass an order that the 2nd respondent is a registered employee under the Act, as per Ext.P4 order. This has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to order registration of the 2nd respondent in a case where there is a dispute as to the relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 5. I am not inclined to accept this submission. There can be no ouster of jurisdiction on the part of the 1st respondent to proceed to register 2nd respondent merely because there is a dispute as to the question of employer- employee relationship. The direction to register the 2nd respondent can be issued W.P.(C)No.15258 of 2009 :: 3 :: by the 1st respondent for the limited purpose of the Act. The real liability insofar as the petitioner is concerned would arise when there is an assessment of contribution by the 1st respondent or the competent authority under the Act, regarding the status of the 2nd respondent as an employee of the petitioner. Assessment proceedings under the Act are quasi- judicial. The Assessing Officer will have to conduct an enquiry. Such enquiry will have to deal with the objection, if any, filed before the officer in this regard and if the petitioner is in a position to produce any clinching material to show that the 2nd respondent was not employed by her, then the Assessing Authority will have to refer to such materials and render an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent. Further, if an order of assessment is passed without referring to the petitioner's objections, then it will be open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. In such a case, she W.P.(C)No.15258 of 2009 :: 4 :: would be entitled to question the correctness of the decision now taken by the 1st respondent that on the materials available the 2nd respondent is entitled to be treated as an employee of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. Sd/- (V.GIRI) Judge sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge