IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29978 of 2006(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M.SREEKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, PRAVAM, KOKKALOOR, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (S) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.A.MATHEW, VATTOTTUTHARAPPEL, KUPPAYAKODE P.O., KODENCHERRY VIA, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADEER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 29978/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PDO DATED 17.3.2001 FOR THE PERIOD 1998-2000. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE FDO DATD 18.10.2001. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE FDO DATED 31.12.2002. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE FDO DATED 31.3.2003 FOR THE PERIOD 1996-2002. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF FDO DATED 19.6.2003 FOR THE PERIOD 2002-2003. EXT.P6 – A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 11.8.2003 FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL. EXT.P7 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.9.2004. EXT.P8 - A TRUE COPY OF THE FDO DATED 22.2.2005. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.10.2006. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R1(a) – TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION NOTE DATED 4.4.2000. EXT.R1(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.12.2002. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 29978 OF 2006-R ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating the vehicle KL-11/D 3546. This writ petition was filed by him, challenging Ext.P1 final determination order concerning the welfare fund dues payable in relation to one Mr.V.M.Mathew, conductor of the petitioner's vehicle. In the final determination order for the year 2000-01, passed as per Ext.P2 dated 18.10.2001, the employees shown therein were: (1) P.M.Sreekumar, Driver, (2) Unnikrishnan, Conductor, (3) Balakrishnan, Checker, (4) V.T.Satheesh, Cleaner, and (5) Somanathan, Clearner. Mr.P.M.Sreekumar being the owner, was exempted. The documents produced by the petitioner would show that his vehicle was having only one conductor. Normally, a stage carriage cannot be operated employing one conductor, in view of the restriction regarding the working hours of the employees under Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On inspection by the officers of the Welfare Fund Board, it was found that one Mr.V.M.Mathew was also WPC 29978/06 2 working as conductor in the stage carriage operated by the petitioner. Based on that finding, Ext.P4 supplementary determination order was passed. The aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal against it before the State Government. The Government dismissed the appeal by Ext.P9 order. Hence this Writ Petition, challenging Exts.P4 and P9. 2. Going by the grounds raised in the writ petition, they have been formulated as if this is an appeal against the decisions of the Executive Officer and the Government. The only legal question raised by the petitioner is regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Executive Officer to reopen the assessment. But, if a workers points out that his name has been wrongly omitted in the assessment orders, the Executive Officer is bound to consider the same and if the claim made is found genuine, the said officer should be conceded power to correct it. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the assessment for the earlier years became final and therefore, the same cannot be reopened, cannot be accepted. It is, in fact, not a reopening, but correction of a mistake by including the name of a worker, who was wrongly omitted, in the assessment order. As mentioned earlier, in view of Section 91 WPC 29978/06 3 of the M.V. Act, the petitioner cannot run his stage carriage employing one conductor. So, he must have been engaging more than one conductor. The said fact lends further credence to the decision of the statutory authorities. In the result, as no valid ground has been raised against the impugned orders which this Court can consider under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 17th October, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.