IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30921 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.SHAILENDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS, LAKSHMI NIVAS, NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE, VARAM P.O., VALIYANNUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (S) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR WORKERS WELFARE FUND, KANNUR. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. P.SIVADASAN, PUTHIYADI HOUSE, VARAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. P.B.AJAYAKUMAR, KILACHA VALAPIL, ELAYAVOOR, MUNDAYAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. T.CHANDRA PRAKASH, THAIKANDI HOUSE, VALIYANNUR, VARAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE,SC,KMTWF BOARD SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH GOBT. PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON 09/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 30921 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Exts. P1 and P6. Ext. P1 is the final determination order issued by the 2nd respondent and Ext. P6 is the order issued by the 1st respondent confirming the same in an appeal that was filed by the petitioner. 2. In Ext. P1 issued for the period 1992-96, it has been found that the petitioner was plying a stage carriage with respondents 4 to 6 as his workers. On this basis, petitioner has been called upon to remit the contribution that is due under the scheme framed under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. Contending that he was not an employer to be saddled with the liability for making payment of contribution, petitioner filed Ext. P5 appeal before the 1st respondent. By Ext. P6 order the appeal has been dismissed and when revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by Exts. P7 and P8 this writ petition has been filed. 3. A reading of Ext. P1 final determination order issued by the W.P.(C) No. 30921 OF 2007 -2- 2nd respondent shows that the 2nd respondent has referred to various pieces of evidence, and mainly the statements that were given by the concerned employees before him. By the time the appeal was filed, it would appear that the petitioner had succeeded in getting Exts. P2 to P4 statements by the concerned employees taking a stand different from what they had stated before the 2nd respondent at the time when the final determination order was passed by him. 4. Now Ext. P6 appellate order is impugned by the petitioner mainly contending that the 1st respondent has not cared to place reliance on Exts. P2 to P4 statements given by the workers. In this context what is required to be noticed is that Ext. P1 final determination order was passed by the 2nd respondent after due enquiry. In the course of such enquiry the 2nd respondent had recorded the statements of the concerned workers which was to the effect that respondents 4 to 6 were the workers of the petitioner. It is based on those statements, the 2nd respondent has found the petitioner liable for making payment of the contribution. When the petitioner filed an appeal, what is now sought to be relied on are the statements that were obtained by the petitioner subsequent to the W.P.(C) No. 30921 OF 2007 -3- final determination order. In my view, all that the appellate authority needs to consider is whether the 2nd respondent was justified in arriving at the conclusions in Ext. P1, on the materials that were available before him. 5. In this case, one of the materials that were available and relied upon were the statements of the workers themselves. If a contrary statement is subsequently procured from the very same workers the appellate authority is justified in refusing to place reliance on those statements, it being unreliable. Therefore, if the appellate authority in Ext. P6 has not relied on Exts. P2 to P4, that authority cannot be faulted for it. A reading of Ext. P6 also shows that the appellate authority has given convincing reasons for rejecting the appeal. 6. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded with the counsel for the petitioner that the order of the appellate authority is vitiated for any reason as canvassed before me. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-