IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 8206 of 2005(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANIL KUMAR, ANIL BHAVAN, AMARA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND, SANATHANAM ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), CHANGANACHERRY. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, KUNNEL HOUSE, AMARA P.O., THRIKKODITHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY. R1 BY SC SRI. K. HARILAL R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.6.2004 TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FROM THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 2.3.2005 EXT.P5 STRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.1 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 8206 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though petitioner disowns liability on the ground that licensee of the toddy shop is the third respondent, first respondent took evidence wherein union leaders and employees in the toddy shop gave evidence that petitioner along with third respondent carried on the business together in the toddy shop. Since there is evidence to prove that petitioner along with third respondent carried on business, both petitioner and third respondent are rightly found to be jointly and severally liable. The decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner's counsel in JOSEPH JOSEPH V. STATE OF KERALA, (2002) 1 K.L.T. 827 (SC) does not go against the proposition of joint liability because on evidence petitioner and third respondent were found to be carrying on business and both answer the description of "employer" under the Act. Petitioner has not produced any evidence or agreement to show the petitioner's role in the toddy business carried on with the third respondent. In the absence of any agreement excluding 2 his liability, petitioner is rightly proceeded against along with third respondent. However, on equitable ground I direct the second respondent first to proceed for recovery against the assets of the third respondent and if recovery is not possible to proceed against the property of the petitioner. Petitioner will identify the property of the third respondent and furnish details to the second respondent to proceed against that property. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 3