IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 32579 of 2005(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ AMMUKUTTY MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW, VAKAYIL HOUSE, PEECHI P.O. THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND RAHABILITATION DEPARTMENT (S), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR.R. OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR. 4. ABEY PHILIP, S/O.PHILIP, VAKKAYIL HOUSE, PEECHI P.O. THRISSUR. 5. K.V.THOMAS, S/O.VARKEY, VAKAYIL HOUSE, PEECHI P.O. THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELADEVI, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32579/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 23/06/1999. P2 : COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER NO.ER-888/FDO/99-01 P3 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 25/01/2002. P4 : COPY OF ORDER G.O.(Rt.) NO.1364/04/LBR. P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14/01/2005 IN WPC NO.1511/05. P6 : COPY OF ENQUIRY NOTICE NO.ER-888/EN/99-01 DATED 03/03/2005. P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 25/08/2005. P8 : COPY OF RR NOTICE NO.RR5-901/2005. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32579 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Challenge is against recovery proceedings for recovery of motor transport workers welfare fund contribution due for the years 1999-2001. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent submitted that petitioner as an operating owner paid contribution for the years 1998-99 and 2001-02. Demand is for two workers. Petitioner has made the two workers as respondents 4 & 5 with a contention that they are partners. If they are partners, it was for them to request for de-registration, which they have not done. Since respondents 4 & 5 are the registered workers and continued to be so, for whom petitioner had remitted contributions for the above two years, I find no bonafides in the contention raised by petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as devoid of any merit. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg