IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16807 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- B.MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR,PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRASANTH CASHEW COMPANY,MANGAD,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,KERALA CASHEW WORKERS RELIEF & WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOLLAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR,KERALA CASHEW WORKERS RELIEF & WELFARE FUND BOARD,KALLAMBALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), KOLLAM. R2 & R3 BY SRI. M.K. CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16807 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 provisional order of assessment by which an amount of Rs.59,895/- has been determined as the amount payable by him under the Kerala Cashew Workers Relief and Welfare Fund Act, 1979 (the 'Act' for short). Ext.P3 is the final order that was passed on 2.11.2009. According to the petitioner, though he had submitted Ext.P2 objections supported by necessary documents to show that the number of employees under him was only 42, final orders have been passed on the basis that the number of employees under him was 230. The petitioner therefore preferred Ext.P4 review petition before the second respondent. The same is still pending. However, Revenue Recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for the recovery of the amounts assessed. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking appropriate orders for an expeditious disposal of Ext.P4. wpc No.16807/2010 2 2. As per Section 10(5) of the Act, the remedy of a person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub Section (1) thereof is to prefer an appeal to the Government or such other authority as may specified by the Government in that behalf. The time limit for preferring such an appeal has been fixed as sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. However, instead of preferring an appeal, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 revision petition. 3. Since the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal, it is not possible to direct a consideration of Ext.P4. The petitioner is free to prefer an appeal before the Government and to seek for condonation of the delay in preferring the same. In view of the fact that the review petition was filed on 24.11.2009, within the period of sixty days stipulated by Section 10(5), the petitioner can certainly seek condonation of delay on the ground that he had been pursuing the remedy by way of review, on the basis of legal advice received by him. Since the remedy preferred by him was not the proper remedy, it cannot be said that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing his wpc No.16807/2010 3 statutory remedies. 4. If the petitioner files an appeal and also moves the Government for condonation of the delay in filing the same, the same shall be considered in view of the circumstances indicated above and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon. The petitioner may also move the Government for the issue of appropriate interim orders during the pendency of the appeal. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/