IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26285 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ V.KAMALAMMA, AYODHYA, NEAR HARIPPAD TEMPLE, HARIPPAD P.O., ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORTS WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, HARIPPAD P.O. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, HARIPPAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.26285 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 order of final determination issued by the second respondent and Ext.P6 notice by which recovery steps are initiated for realisation of the amounts covered under Ext.P2, which pertains to contributions payable by the employer for the years 1994 to 1996. The petitioner had approached the appellate authority on an earlier occasion and in Ext.P1 the second respondent was directed to pass fresh orders. Ext.P2 order is issued consequent to the direction contained in Ext.P1. With respect to the subsequent period of 1996-97, the appellate authority had remanded another determination order through Ext.P3 directing to conduct de nova enquiry and to pass fresh orders of determination. In that case, the appellate authority had specifically directed the second respondent to consider the contention for deleting the name of the W.P(C) No.26285 of 2009 2 husband of the petitioner who is cited as an employee (driver of the bus service), from the list of workers for whom contributions are payable. On the basis of the direction of the appellate authority, revised assessment order was issued as evidenced by Ext.P4. The second respondent accepted the contention and deleted name of the husband of the petitioner from the list of employees. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of the findings in Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent had not revised Ext.P2 determination order, pertaining to the previous period of 1994-96, deleting the name of the petitioner's husband and reducing the contribution payable accordingly. In this regard the petitioner had filed Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent seeking necessary directions. Now pending consideration and disposal of Ext.P5 representation, recovery steps have been initiated as evidenced by Ext.P6. Hence the writ petition. W.P(C) No.26285 of 2009 3 2. Heard standing counsel appearing for the second respondent. It is contended that Ext.P2 order of final determination pertaining to the period 1994-1996 was issued as early as on 31.12.1998 and the petitioner has not opted to file any appeal against the said order. Since Ext.P2 had attained finality, the same cannot be revised in view of the findings in Ext.P3 appeal or on the basis of Ext.P4 revised order. 3. On the facts of the case, I find that the petitioner ought to have been assessed with respect to two employees only, since the husband of the petitioner who is working as driver is held as not an employee entitled to get contributions from welfare fund. But the facts remains that the final determination order with respect to the years 1994 to 1996 had already attained finality because there was no appeal. Hence on merits the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this court for granting any relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted W.P(C) No.26285 of 2009 4 that the Government being the higher executive authority, necessary directions can be issued on the basis of Ext.P5. It is for the petitioner to pursue such remedies if available before the Government, and it is for the Government to decide as to whether any relief can be granted on Ext.P5 petition. 4. Having considered the entire facts, I am inclined to direct to keep in abeyance recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 notice for a period of two months in order to facilitate the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the Government to pursue Ext.P5, if it is sustainable, on condition of the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.15,000/- out of the amount covered under Ext.P2, within a period of one month from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE app/-