IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 1449 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20246/2006 Dated 20/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- CYRIL BRISTO, PONPOZHIYIL HOUSE, CMC 3, CHERTHALA.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERTHALA. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHERTHALA. 5. THE TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 6. GANGADHARAN JAYADEVAN, PUTHUVAL VELIYIL, KADAKKARAPPALLI VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MEERA.K. BY ADV. SRI. KOSHY GEORGE - R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.1449 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J: The appellant/petitioner approached the civil court when recovery proceedings were initiated for recovery of the toddy welfare fund dues. The Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Inspector was a party to the civil proceedings. The civil court found that the licensee and the employer of the particular toddy shop was the 6th respondent herein and appellant was not the employer. His contention was that the entire dues were paid and in any event, the writ petitioner is not the licensee and the employer. When the writ petitioner approached this Court for a direction to the Tahsildar to receive the land tax from the petitioner and issue receipt for the same, that was rejected by the leaned Single Judge on the ground that the welfare funds are due from the petitioner. In Toddy Worker's W.F. Inspector v. Madhavan Nair (1990 (1) KLT 662(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the question whether the employer to pay the welfare fund dues can be decided only by the statutory authorities under the Welfare Fund Act. A W.A..No.1449/08 . 2 Full Bench decision of this Court in A.M.S. Mannadiar v. State of Kerala (1995 (1) KLT 606) held that if the civil court proceedings is a nullity, that can be raised even in collateral proceedings. Here the position is entirely different. Finding of the civil court was that petitioner was not conducting any toddy shop. The licensee was different. He was not the employer. Finding of the civil court declares status of the petitioner. It is an inter party decision that was not challenged. It is binding on the respondents. According to the Tahsildar, land tax cannot be accepted except with the endorsement of the petitioner's liability under the toddy workers welfare fund Act. The Tahsildar has to receive the land tax from the petitioner. The petitioner's liability under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act in the remarks column No.6 is in dispute and the petitioner obtained a civil court order in his favour. The Government as well as the Welfare Fund Board were parties to the civil court judgment. It is binding on the parties. The power of the civil court is explained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport & others v. Mohar Singh (2008 (5) SCC 542). Hence, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Tahsildar to receive the land tax from the petitioner and to W.A..No.1449/08 . 3 issue receipt accordingly without showing the dues to the Toddy Welfare Fund. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl