IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 391 of 2010(Y) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- AUGUSTINE, S/O. THANKACHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, MINIVILASAM, MYLAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (S) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOLLAM. 3. OMANAKUTTAN, S/O. NANU, KANIYAMKONATHU, VEEDULMUTTARA, ODANAVATTOM, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO,SC,KTWWF BOARD (TODDY WO FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.391 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order under Section 8(1) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, demanding contribution to the Welfare Fund. The total amount of contribution demanded is Rs.4,05,000/- as on May, 2009. According to the petitioner, he had received a copy of the order on 3.7.2009. But, on 26.7.2009, he was arrested by the Chavara police in Crime No.135 of 2008, a case involving illicit spirit. Since he was in judicial custody, he could not challenge Ext.P1 by filing an appeal within the time prescribed. Therefore, he submitted Ext.P2 appeal before the first respondent, accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay. However, by Ext.P3 order, the petition as well as appeal have been rejected on the ground that there is no provision in the Act for condonation of delay. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 order was passed without hearing the petitioner, that he was not the licensee of Wpc 391/2010 2 the shop, that he has no liability to pay the welfare fund contribution that is demanded and that he is entitled to have the delay in filing the appeal condoned. 3. The counsel for the second respondent, Mr.Renil Anto, opposes the contentions of the petitioner by pointing out that there is no provision in the Act for condonation of delay. It is pointed out that the petitioner was given ample opportunities to plead and prove his case during the enquiry under Section 8(1) of the Act. The petitioner also admits that he had received a copy of the order on 3.7.2009. Therefore, there are no grounds for condonation of delay, as rightly held in Ext.P3. 4. I find that there is no provision in the Act for condonation of delay. Therefore, Ext.P3 is perfectly justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not filed the appeal within the time prescribed, there are no grounds for allowing the prayer for a direction to entertain the appeal in spite of the delay. However, the counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to pay the amount that is demanded in instalments. I feel that the prayer Wpc 391/2010 3 for instalments can be granted. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts due and payable by him as per the determination order Ext.P1, in six equal monthly instalments starting from 15.3.2010. All proceedings for recovery of the amounts demanded shall be kept in abeyance till the amounts are paid in instalments as stipulated above. If there are consecutive defaults on the part of the petitioner of two monthly instalments, the respondents shall be free to initiate recovery proceedings in accordance with law. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk