IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 19217 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. JOMY HIGH SCHOOL ROAD QUARTERS, CHERPLASSERY. 2. VELU ALIAS MANI, MAVUNDIRI VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR PALAKKAD 678 001. KERALA TODDY WELFARE FUND. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC, KTWWFB (TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JJJ WPC NO: 19217/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN WPC5193/2010 P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED U/S.8(5) OF THE TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND ACT, 1969. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF STAY ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19217 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent is under challenge. Ext.P4 order was passed in an appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 8(5) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, where stay was granted on condition that the petitioners remit 50% of the assessed amount due to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board. Appeal was filed against the final determination order passed by the 1st respondent in relation to toddy shop Nos. 1 to 66 of Cheruplassery Range and holding that the petitioners were employers liable to pay contribution in respect of the employees in the toddy shops. According to the petitioners, they have not employed any person either as contractors or otherwise, to make them liable for the contribution in question. It is stated that, it was despite that final determination order was passed holding them liable to pay the amount of more than `18 lakhs. It was against the said order appeal was filed in which the impugned order of stay was passed. 2. Considering the large amount that is sought to be WPC No. 19217/11 :2 : recovered from the petitioners and in the nature of the contentions raised by them, this Court passed order dated 28/7/11, directing the respondents to file an affidavit explaining the basis on which the petitioners were sought to be held liable. Accordingly, affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent where it is stated that an enquiry was held and that the petitioners did not appear in the enquiry and that it was on the basis of the evidence collected, the order was passed. However, this order also does not disclose the basis or the materials on the basis of which the liability was fastened on the petitioners. 3. In such circumstances and also having regard to the contention of the petitioners that they were never the licensees of the shops in question, I am inclined to think that the condition requiring the petitioners to remit 50% of the amount is too onerous and therefore its remittance cannot be insisted upon. 4. In that view, I quash Ext.P4 and direct that the petitioners shall pay 1/4th of the amount due under Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent within four weeks from today, in which event, the 1st respondent will consider the appeal with WPC No. 19217/11 :3 : notice to the parties concerned and as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp