IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2932 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.SURESH, PARACHALIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), PALAI, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2932 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an order passed by the Government of Kerala allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner in relation to a claim for the year 2002-2005. Following Ext.P1 order of remand, the liability of the petitioner to pay contribution under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme was reexamined and Ext.P2 order has been passed on a finding that the petitioner is liable to pay contribution during the aforesaid period. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that the whole conclusion is based on the statement recorded from one of the employees of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner contends that he did not have any regular employee and that very same employee by giving an affidavit which is produced as Ext. P2, endorsed the petitioner’s version. It is his contention that without giving notice to him, the statement of this employee was recorded and he would have successfully contradicted the version given had he been given WPC2932/2008 2 notice . It is on this ground, petitioner contends that in passing Ext.P2 order, the first respondent has violated the principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner had a right of appeal and he did not avail of this. Since petitioner had not made payment the first respondents have initiated recovery action against the petitioner. Accordingly, Exts.P5 and P5(a) notices under the Revenue Recovery Act were issued. In this background, the writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P4, P4(a), P5 and P5(a). 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel for the respondents. 5. It is true that at the time when the statement of the employee has recorded, the petitioner was not given notice. It should have been with notice to him and he should have been given an opportunity to contradict the correctness of the same. It has not been done in this case. Therefore, the evidence collected, being one without notice to the petitioner, has to be held as one in violation of principles of natural justice. For this reason, I am inclined to direct that the first respondent shall reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and after WPC2932/2008 3 affording an opportunity to contradict the evidence that has been collected. Therefore, Ext.P2 will stand closed. The first respondent will issue notice to the petitioner and other employees and record statement, if any, in the presence of the petitioner and with notice to him. The petitioner will also be given an opportunity to contradict such evidence. 6. Since the petitioner had not pursued the statutory remedy by filing appeal, the aforesaid opportunity can be granted to the petitioner only subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, I direct that the opportunity granted as above will be only on the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.30,000/- out of the amount that is now found to be due from the petitioner. The deposit will be made within two weeks from today and its appropriation will depend upon the final order to be passed on conclusion of the enquiry as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE csl