IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7213 of 2009(V) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ PRABEESH.A., AGED 33, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, OLAKKUZHIPARAMBU VEEDU, P.O.CIVIL STATIO, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ALLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TODDY WORKERS WELFRE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. SRI.RENIL ANTO, SC, KTWWFB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 7213 OF 2009 (V) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T What the petitioner essentially seeks is to quash Ext.P2 and a direction is sought for the issuance of a clearance certificate without insisting on the payment demanded. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the previous year also, he was a licencee of the toddy shop and that the payments in this year were made on the basis of the number of employees, who were engaged in the previous year, despite substantial reduction in their number. It is stated that if the amounts due to be contributed by the petitioner is reckoned based on the number of employees engaged this year the contribution already made will be sufficient to discharge the entire liability for the current year. On that basis, petitioner contends that the advance contribution demanded in Ext.P2 is unjustifiable. 3. Standing counsel appearing for the Board referring to Ext.P2 contends that advance contribution is to be paid based on the previous years contribution at the rate of 1/12 per month. It is stated that if the petitioner has a case that there has been WPC 7213/09 :2 : reduction in the number of employees, and hence reduction in the amount payable, that can be determined only at a stage when the final determination order is passed. 4. I have heard both sides and I am inclined to agree with the stand taken by the respondents. As is seen from Ext.P2 itself, what is demanded is advance contribution at the rate as prescribed. If that be so, until the final determination order is passed, petitioner cannot find fault with the respondents in demanding the amount. Therefore, I see nothing irregular in Ext.P2. 5. Be that as it may, the request issue made by the petitioner is mainly for the issuance of a clearance certificate. This the respondents shall necessarily do, on the petitioner paying 50% of the amount that is demanded in Ext.P2. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp