IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15320 of 2005(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. JOY SEBASTIAN, EDATTU HOUSE, LALAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 575. 2. SAJU SEBASTIAN, EDATTU HOUSE, LALAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 575. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC SMT.JASMINE ALEX RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THE KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. VARKEY MATHAI, ILLIMOOTTIL, PURAPPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. C.C.SEBASTIAN, CHOORACKATTU HOUSE, KADANADU P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R2 BY G.P. SRI. SABU R1 BY SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR REVENUE RECOVERY DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER NO. K2/PALA 124-126, 131- 133/99-00 DATED 28.11.2000 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 15320 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Of the two petitioners, first petitioner is no more. The case of the petitioners is that they were not licensees of the toddy shops and therefore contribution demanded under the final determination order is not payable by them and that respondents 3 and 4 are the licensees. However, standing counsel for the Toddy workers Welfare Fund Board submitted that employees and licensees gave evidence that petitioners were actually carrying on the business. Obviously petitioners cannot wriggle out of the liability if they were running the toddy shops,. They were bound to remit the contribution along with contribution collected from the employees, no matter they were not licensees because petitioners were liable at least as agents or managers of the olicensees. Petitioners have not filed any appeal against final adjudication order and the amounts are also stated to be paid by the second petitioner. In the circumstances, W.P. is dismissed. However, it is open to the second petitioner to proceed with the claim against respondents 3 and 4 if the same is permissible under agreement between them. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 2 kk