IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 1377 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5790/2007 Dated 23/08/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 ------------------------------------------------- 1. M. ABBAS, S/O. KUNHALAN, MOOLATH HOUSE, CHEMBAKAKUTH, EDAVANNA.P.O, ERNADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. LABOUR AND REHABILITATIOIN DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. T.A. SHIBU, S/O. ALEXANDER, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTUMUNDA, P.O. NADUVATH, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. -------------------------------- R.P.No.1377/08 in W.P.(C).No.5790 OF 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. O R D E R This review petition has been filed by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging the final determination order passed by the authority under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and Scheme and the order passed by the Government dismissing the appeal. Although contentions were raised on merits, the judgment was rendered in the writ petition, accepting an affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the workman concerned, to the effect that he had no objection in allowing the writ petition. Review petitioner now points out that since the scheme contemplates compulsory coverage of the workmen of the motor transport undertaking, such a view taken in the judgment is erroneous. R.P.No.1377/08 2 3. I heard the counsel for the review petitioner and also the writ petition. As stated by the review petitioner, scheme contemplates compulsory coverage and if that be so, the fact that individual workman may opt out of the scheme by itself is no reason to interfere with the final determination order or the appellate order. In view of this I am satisfied that the judgment is erroneous and for that reason judgment has been reviewed and recalled. Review Petition is allowed. Post the writ petition for hearing. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ R.P.No.1377/08 3