IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 32655 of 2002(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K.THANKAMMA, W/O.KOCHUKUNJU, AGED 74, THUNDILPUTHANPURAIL HOUSE, KANAPALLIL BAGHAM, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (S) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER KERALA MOTORS TRANSPORTS WORKERS WELFARE FUNDS BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KARTHIKAPALLI TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELADEVI, SC,KMTWF BOARD R1 AND R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 55205 OF 2002 IN OP 32655 OF 2002 DISMISSED 29.2.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY DR. G. VENUGOPAL DATED 26.6.1998 EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THEREFERRAL OP CARD DATED 4.6.1998 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 3.10.01 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 23.9.02 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DATED 23.9.2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.10.02 REJECTING THE APPEAL ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 8.5.2002 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 32655 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though appeal filed against final determination order is rejected on the ground of delay, I do not think a remand for considering the case on merits will help the petitioner any better because demand of contribution is only for three motor transport workers while a stage carriage with two doors can be operated with a minimum of four workers. Petitioner is admittedly the registered owner who was operating the stage carriage. I am sure if the case is remanded back, petitioner will have to pay higher contribution as minimum one more employee will be covered in remand proceedings. In the circumstances and in the interest of the petitioner, O.P. is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2