IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 5192 of 2008(R) PETITIONER: MR. JOSEPH BABU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. PAILY JOSEPH, CHERA KUZHIYIL HOUSE, KAKOOR P.O., KOTHATTUKULAM (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKER'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 2. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (S) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MR. C.N.PRASAD, SHYLALAYAM, THIRUMARADI, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. MR. ROY P.S., PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. MR. K.J.JOY, S/O. YOHANAN, ELAMTHODATHIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. MR. MATHEW ZACHARIYA, CHIRAPURATH HOUSE, THIRUMARADI P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, KMTWF BOARD GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 5192 OF 2008 R ==================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P19, by which Ext.P18 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P16 final determination order was rejected by the 2nd respondent. A reading of Ext.P19 shows that the appeal was rejected as belated. According to the petitioner, Ext.P16 final determination order though issued on 21/12/2006, was not served on the petitioner and that immediately on its receipt, the appeal was filed. On this basis, petitioner contends that there was no delay in filing the appeal. 2. On the other hand, the standing counsel for the Board would submit that the order was served on the petitioner on 29/12/2006 and that the appeal filed in July 2007 was belated. 3. Admittedly, Ext.P19 order rejecting the appeal was passed without hearing the petitioner. Hearing the petitioner was WPC 5192/08 :2 : necessary, all the more for the reason that he has a case that Ext.P16 order was not served on him and hence the appeal was not belated. 4. Therefore, in my view the matter needs to be reconsidered. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P19 and direct that the 2nd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, hear him and then take a decision afresh in the matter. I clarify that I have not pronounced on the merits of the contentions raised either by the petitioner or by the respondents and that it is entirely for the appellate authority to appreciate the contentions and take a decision untramelled by the observations made hereinabove. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp