IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 32642 of 2002(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.KOCHUGOVINDAN, PLAMOOTIL HOUSE, VAKKOM P.O., KADAKKAVOOR, TRIVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.V.RENJU SMT.RAGAM.K.P. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (S) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, TRIVANDRUM. 4. B.VIJAYANANDAN, ANANDA BHAVANAM, KODUMON JUNCTION, RAMACHAMVILA, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 32642/2002 ORDER ON CMP NO.55192/2002 IN O.P.NO.32642/2002 & I.A.NO.807/2004 IN O.P.NO. 32642/2002 DISMISSED. 18/01/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 01/06/1987 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT. P2 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 09/11/2000 IN O.P.NO. 6228/2000. P3 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 04/09/2002 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/11/1995. P5 : COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FROM TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZU DATED 24/12/2003. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- O.P. No. 32642 of 2002 ------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order, which is an order in appeal issued by the Government confirming the demand of contribution towards motor transport workers welfare fund on petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner was in operation of a stage carriage. According to petitioner, vehicle was sold vide Ext.P1 to 4th respondent on 01/06/87. However, it is seen from Ext.P3 that employees of the same vehicle gave evidence on 27/09/88 that petitioner is the employer, who engaged them in the vehicle. Even though this Court issued notice to 4th respondent, he has not cared to appear. It is also seen from Ext.P3 that petitioner has not produced the so called sale deed in the several enquiries posted by the adjudicating officer. In the circumstances, I do not find any bonafides in petitioner’s contention that the vehicle was sold. Moreover, even after alleged sale of vehicle, the employees have given statement that petitioner is the operating owner, and therefore, there is no scope for interfering with the adjudication order confirmed in appeal. This original petition is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg