IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 9973 of 2003(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. A.V.CHANDRAN, S/O. VASU, ANJUTHAIKKAL VEEDU, KUDAVECHOOR P.O., VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 2. N.K.SADANANDAN, S/O. KELAKUNJU, NEDUVELIPARAMBIL, PERUNTHURUTHU P.O., KALLARA, VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 3. RATHEESH, S/O. GOPALAN, VELIMPARAMBIL, OMALLUR, MANJOOR P.O., VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 4. VASANTHAKUMARI, W/O. MOHANDAS, NAMBICHIRAKKALAYIL, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 5. VIJAYAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, ALAMPANKUZHIYIL, UDAYANAPAURAM P.O., VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 6. SUDHAMANI, W/O. CHANDRAN, MOOSARAYIL, THEKKENADA, VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 7. SREEDHARAN, S/O. KUMARAN, NAMBICHIRAKKALAYIL, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 8. BINDU, W/O. BABU, AVITTAM VEEDU, THOTTAKOM, THALAYAZHAM, VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM O.P. NO. 9973/2003-K: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 3. P.X. BABU, PULLANKULATHU, ULLALA, THALAYAZHAM, VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 4. V.SABU, KATTUKARAYIL VEEDU, THALAYAZHAM, VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., LABOUR & REHABILITATION (B) DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHADEVI, ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER, SRI.RAJESH THOMAS, SRI.A.K.JOHN, SC, KTWWF BOARD. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 9973/2003-K: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 17123/2003 IN O.P. NO. 9973/2003-K DISMISSED 25/01/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1. SERIES: COPIES OF STATEMENT OF WAGES AND WELFARE FUND FILED BEFORE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DETERMINATION ORDER NO. K1/VAIKOM/21,22/1997-98 DTD. 22/12/2000. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. K2/VKM/1-49/97-98 DTD. 01/04/2002 ISSUED BY R.1. SHOWING OUTSTANDING DUES. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 25/01/2003 SEEKING TO REVIEW EXT.P.2. SENT TO R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 07/11/2002 IN C.M.P. NO. 55582/02 IN O.P. NO. 32882/02. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 02/02/2001 FILED BY 3RD & 4TH RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE NO. K421, 22/97-98 DTD. 12/05/99. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O. (RT). NO. 3310/20001 LBR DTD. 07/11/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================== O.P.No.9973 of 2003-K. ========================== Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is one filed challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the Government under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969. The petitioners were licensees of Toddy Shop Nos.21 & 22 under the Vaikom Range along with others for the year 1997-'98. According to the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 are also persons who had conducted the toddy shops along with the petitioners. Ext.P2 is the final determination order passed by the Welfare Fund Inspector. As per Ext.P2 the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 and other licensees are liable for the payment of contribution. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that the Government in exercise of the powers of appeal as per Ext.P8 exonerated the respondents 3 and 4 from the liability. It is stated that before passing Ext.P8 no notice was issued to the petitioners. OP.No.9973 of 2003-K. 2 2. Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the petitioners have not filed any appeal against Ext.P2 before the Government and therefore it is not necessary to hear them before deciding their appeal, which is produced as Ext.P6 herein. It is therefore vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 that the argument raised by the petitioners is unreal and Ext.P8 has to be sustained. 3. Ext.P8 really affects the petitioners. In the final determination order Ext.P2 the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 and some others have been found liable to pay contribution. Apart from that, the contention of the petitioners is that the respondents 3 and 4 were equally responsible as they had played their part in conducting the toddy shops. It is therefore a case where the Government has to consider the issue after notice to all the parties, since by Ext.P8 respondents 3 and 4 have been directed to be excluded. Normally therefore the liability of petitioners to pay the contribution will be much more. In that way the order Ext.P8 will affect them. Therefore, they were entitled to be heard in the matter. Further, since Ext.P2 was the order under challenge in the appeal, all those who were parties had to be OP.No.9973 of 2003-K. 3 heard by the Government. Apart from that in Ext.P8 no detailed reasons have been stated also while considering the merits of the case. Hence I quash Ext.P8. Consequently there will be a direction to the first respondent to hear and dispose of Ext.P6 with notice to the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 and any other affected parties within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-