IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 6841 of 2004(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- P.N. PRAKASAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, PARAMBITHARA HOUSE, MANNANCHERRY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.J.JOHN JACAB ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. SECRETARY, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. N. MOHANDAS, NARAYANAMANGALAM, WEST NADA, AMBALAPPUZHA. 4. A.J. ALBERT, ANJILIPARAMBIL, CHETTIKKADU, PATHIRAPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL, SC, KTWWF BOARD FOR R2 SRI.M.R.SABU FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAIBY PAUL FOR R1 SRI.KOSHY GEORGE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF RENEWED IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.1.97. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETERMINATION ORDER TODDY SHOP NOS 24 TO 26 ALAPPUZHA RANGE DATED 31.8.2000. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.8.2002 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY THE ORDER DATED 31.3.200. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER 2000-2001 DATED 18.7.2003. [ True copy ] P.S. to Judge. ul/- ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6841 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of August , 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P2, P3 and P4 orders passed by the respondents determining the liability of the petitioner as employee in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act. 2. The shops in question are T.S. Nos.24 and 26 of Alappuzha range and the relevant period is 1998-1999. During the said period, licence in respect of the today shops were granted to respondents 3 and 4. In the course of his enquiry, the first respondent found that the petitioner was also an employer. Accordingly he passed Ext.P1 order, of preliminary determination, holding petitioner also liable as an employer. To this, the petitioner or respondents 3 and 4 did not file any objection. Thereupon Ext.P2 final determination order was passed, W.P.(C) No. 6841 OF 2004 :2 : where the petitioner was also held to be an employer and liable for the contribution. 3. Against this order petitioner did not file any appeal. On the other hand respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal which was disposed of by Ext.P3 order of the first respondent. In that order, in so far as the appellants are concerned the appeal was rejected. However noticing that the petitioner's name was also included among the employees, the first respondent directed the 2nd respondent to examine whether there is any duplication and if so, to delete the petitioner's name from the list of employees. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent again conducted an enquiry and passed Ext.P4 order, in which the petitioner's name was ordered to be deleted, from the list of employees. Against this also the petitioner did not file any appeal as provided under the Act. On the other hand, he filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4. W.P.(C) No. 6841 OF 2004 :3 : 4. First of all, a reading of Exts.P2, P3 and P4 shows that it was on the basis of the enquiry conducted, the evidence collected and the materials available, that the respondents 1 and 2 have concurrently held that the petitioner is also an employer, under the Act. Petitioner did not either participate in the enquiry or availed of the statutory remedies. In such circumstances the findings arrived at by the statutory authorities does not call for any interference, much less in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-