IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 24402 of 2004(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. E.I.CHANDY, ELANJIVEETTIL HOUSE, OLESSA P.O., KOTTAYAM DT. 2. RAJESH CHANDY, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED: R3. SRI.A.K.BHASKARAN, KOTTARAPARAMBIL VEEDU, MARIATHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM – 27. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 15/06/2005 IN I.A.NO.15728/04) BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH – r1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD - R2 SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM - ADDL.R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.24402/2004 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2: ....DO...DO..... 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DTD. 3/08/1995. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER SERVED ON THE 1ST PETITIONER DTD. 20/02/1998. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DTD. 24/03/1998. EXT.P6: .....DO...DO.... BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ...DO... EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/10/1997 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DTD. 30/03/2000. EXT.P9: ...DO... BY THE 2ND PETITIONER, DTD. 30/03/2000. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 19/04/2004. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3/5/2004 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R5(A): COPY OF THE SUMMONS IN C.C.376/95 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.24402 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the employers in a proceedings under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. They are challenging Exts.P7 and P11 orders, which are the assessment order and the appellate order respectively in the matter of assessment of contributions under the Act. The contention of the petitioners is that there is no evidence to prove that the two workmen namely, Bhaskaran and Harshakumar stated to be employed by the petitioners were actually employed by the petitioners continuously. According to the petitioners, they were occasionally engaged for a small period and were never employed for 90 days which is the requirement for payment of contributions under the Act. The petitioners have got another contention that the appellate authority did not comply with the principles of natural justice while hearing the matter in so far as the petitioners and the workmen involved were heard separately in the absence of each other. They would also submit that there is W.P.(c)No.24402/04 2 no statement by either Bhaskaran or Harshakumar to the effect that they had completed 90 days of service and thus qualified for becoming eligible for benefits under the Act. 2. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. He would submit that the assessment order was passed on the basis of the depositions of both the petitioners as well as the workers involved. The evidence adduced by the workers as well as the petitioners were considered and on the basis of the evidence it was found that the workman named, Bhaskaran was in employment of the 1st petitioner from 1.4.86 to 28.2.92 and both Bhaskaran and Harshakumar were in the employment of the 2nd petitioner from 1.3.92 and 13.4.92 onwards respectively. 3. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, apart from the self serving averments of the petitioners to the effect that the workers did not have the qualifying service, the evidence does not justify a conclusion in favour of the petitioners. 4. With the help of a counter affidavit filed along with which Ext.R5(a) judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kottayam the 5th respondent would support the orders. W.P.(c)No.24402/04 3 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Before going into the contentions, I must remind myself of the limitation of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in dealing with the orders of the kind challenged before me. It settled law that findings of fact in such quasi-judicial orders cannot be interfered with unless the same are demonstrably perverse. Here, there is only oral evidence, that of the workers involved and the petitioners. The assessing authority has weighed the evidence of both sides and accepted the version of the workers to the effect that they were actually employed for the period so found. I cannot now re-appreciate the evidence before the assessing authority and come to a different conclusion in the absence of any perversity in the findings. Therefore, I do not think that I can in exercise of my jurisdiction interfere with the findings of fact in Ext.P7. Since I had considered the contentions of the petitioners on the validity of Ext.P7 itself separately, independent of Ext.P11, I do not find it necessary to consider the contention of the petitioners that before the appellate authority the petitioners and the workmen were heard W.P.(c)No.24402/04 4 separately in the absence of each other. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd