IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 988 of 2009(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13696/2009 Dated 25/05/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1,3,7 & 8 IN WPC -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABITATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR0, TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2,4,5 & 6 IN WPC -------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPAKUMAR S/O.LATE MADHAVAN ILAYATH, VEMBALLOOR ILLAM, THIRUNAVA P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND ROAD, MALAPPURAM. 3. T.K.PUSHKARAN, S/O. KUNJUKOCHU, THANDEL HOUSE, PADINJARE KODIKULAM P.O. KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 4. T.P. JOSHY,S/O. PADMANABHAN, THOTTAPURATHU HOUSE, KALAVAMKODU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 5. C.K. BALAKRISHNAN S/O. DIVAKARAN, CHANGROTHU HOUSE, PADINJATE KARA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WE FOR R2 ADV.SRI.MANU VILSON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 988 OF 2009 IN WP(C) NO. 13696 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of November, 2009 O R D E R The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent stating that coercive steps were being pursued against him in respect of non remittance of the contribution under the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, without serving any notice or the final assessment order so as to enable him to have approached the appellate authority availing the statutory remedy. It was also stated that, notwithstanding the non- receipt of the order, the Writ Petitioner had approached the Government by filing Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 stay petition, contending that he was only a 'Karmi' in a Temple and not at all connected with the running of the toddy shop in question. 2. When the Writ Petition came for admission, taking note of the specific nature of averments, it was disposed of, directing the Government to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P2 appeal/ Ext.P3 petition for stay; however making it clear that, till appropriate orders are passed in ExtP3 petition for stay, all further coercive steps should be kept in abeyance. RP No. 988 of 2009 in WP(C) 13696/2009 2 3. After finalisation of the proceedings as above, the State has approached this Court by filing this Review Petition, stating that no such appeal as contended by the Writ Petitioner had been filed before the Government and hence that the matter required to be reviewed. In the course of the proceedings, the second respondent filed a statement asserting that the contentions raised by the Writ Petitioner were totally wrong, misleading and amounting to wilful mis- representation; in so far as the second respondent had already issued a 'pre- assessment notice' to the Writ Petitioner by registered post; that the Writ Petitioner had entered appearance and filed a signed statement before the said authority and further that the final determination order was passed and the same was forwarded to the Writ Petitioner by registered post. The second respondent has also produced a copy of the statement containing the signature of the Writ Petitioner and also copies of acknowledgment cards returned. It was in the said circumstances, that this Court passed an interim order on 20th November, 2009, observing that, if the contentions raised in the Review Petition as well as in the statement filed by the second respondent were correct, the matter would be required to be dealt with seriously, granting time to the 1st respondent/Writ Petitioner to file an affidavit to explain the sequence of events. 4. Pursuant to above order, the first respondent in the Review Petition has now filed an affidavit dated 24th November 2009; virtually conceding the specific averments raised by the second respondent in the statement, to the effect that the pre-assessment notice was served upon him; that he had RP No. 988 of 2009 in WP(C) 13696/2009 3 executed a signed statement before the said authority and further that the final order was served to him. This being the position, it is very much clear that the Writ Petitioner has made a clear misrepresentation; which is liable to be proceeded against, by way of appropriate proceedings. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent in the Review Petition (petitioner in the Writ Petition), submits that the said respondent actually received the concerned proceedings about 9 years back; that he could not actually recollect the proper course of events and it was in the said circumstance, that he gave the instructions to the counsel in Thrissur who in turn conveyed the same to the Counsel at Ernakulam to have the Writ Petition filed before this Court. The explanation offered from the part of the first respondent does not appear to be palatable to this Court and this Court records the extreme displeasure with regard to the manner in which the Writ Petition was filed and got finalized, though this Court does not intend to proceed further against the Writ Petitioner, considering the totality of all the facts and circumstances. The Review Petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is recalled. The Writ Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Review Petitioner/State of Kerala. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc