IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 17178 of 2006(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- VARGHESE IYPE, NEDUMKALLEL HOUSE, KALLOORKKAD P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, LABOUR & REHABILITATION (S) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, KMTWF BOARD R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON 03/12/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 17178 of 2006(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER NO.36201/S-1/92/REVENUE DATED 18.05.1992. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.11.1992. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.1992. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02.02.1993 AGAINST EXT.P3 EXT.P5 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY the PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04.05.1993. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE STAY ORDER OF THIS HON: HIGH COURT IN CMP NO. 26581/93 IN OP NO.14673/93 DATED 27.10.1993. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATD 01.11.1993. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.1995. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY the PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.12.1995 AGAINST EXHIBIT P8. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY the 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.1996. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.12.2002. EXT.P12 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.04.2006 DISMISSING EXTS.P4 & P9 APPEALS. RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.17178 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a motor transport undertaking. For three years namely 1990-91, 1991-92 & 1992-93 final determination orders were passed under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. The petitioner's son was included as an employee and contributions were demanded. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's son is not liable to be covered since he is not an employee and not earning wages. The petitioner filed appeals against the final determination orders, which were dismissed. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P12 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order: ii) declare that Sri. Benny Joseph, son of the petitioner who is not working for wages, shall not be included for the assessment of motor transport workers welfare fund contribution” W.P.(C)No.17178 of 2006 -2- Ext.P12 is the appellate order. The counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that during the enquiry pursuant to the provisional determination order one of the employees working in the motor transport undertaking gave evidence to the effect that the petitioner's son is a conductor working in the undertaking. It is on that basis the assessment has been made. The petitioner has not produced any documents to prove otherwise. Therefore the assessment orders and the appellate orders are valid and proper, is the contention raised. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. It is for the petitioner to prove that any person who is sought to be included as an employee for assessing contributions under the Act is not an employee of his motor transport undertaking. The petitioner has not discharged that burden. He has not chosen to adduce any evidence before either the original authority or the appellate authority to prove his contentions. The assessing authority relied on the statements of other employees to arrive at the W.P.(C)No.17178 of 2006 -3- conclusion that the petitioner's son was working as a conductor in the undertaking of the petitioner. The petitioner has not taken any steps to prove otherwise by adducing evidence. This court cannot interfere with a finding of fact in an order under the Act, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the same is demonstrably perverse. The petitioner has not produced any material whatsoever in that direction. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/