IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36572 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VARKEY.N.V., NIRAPPEL HOUSE, ]THODUPUZHA EAST.P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADVS. MR.RENJITH B.MARAR MR.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. KC.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 36572 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P1, P2 and P4 final determination orders passed by the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, demanding contributions under the Act. Petitioners main grievance is regarding the interest charged. According to the petitioner, since it is the 2nd respondent who delayed passing of final determination orders, the petitioner cannot be further saddled with interest also. I am of opinion that the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the final determination orders in an appeal as provided under the Act itself. But the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent is not accepting the amounts offered by the petitioner and as a result, the interest would mount. He seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to accept the amount tendered by him. 2. This is opposed by the learned Government Pleader. 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: W.P(C) No. 36572 of 2009 -2- 4. Since the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of appeal, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, I discuss the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders in appeals. However if the petitioner tenders any amounts in payment of the demands under Exts.P1, P2 and P4, the same shall be accepted by the 2nd respondent towards part payment of the amounts issued and the same shall be adjusted against the amount due in accordance with law. But I make it clear that this shall not be construed as a stay against recovery pending appeal and it would be open to the respondents to recover the whole amounts in accordance with law, if the petitioner does not produce orders of stay from the appellate authority. It is for the petitioner to move the appellate authority for stay also. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge