IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7918 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.G.RAMACHANDRAN, THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULAYAMP.O, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR & REHABILITATION (S) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), OFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), THRISSUR. 4. SURESH, S/O PLASSERY KUMARAN, CHELAKKARA DESOM, NELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 5. FILOMINA, S/O MATHEW, POOVAN PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, KANNARA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SMT.I.SHEELADEVI, SC, KMTWWFB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7918 OF 2008 P ==================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, recovery proceedings have been initiated by Ext.P6 for realising the dues under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. Petitioner contends that he had purchased the vehicle, kept it for three months and sold it. To prove his point, petitioner relies on Exts.P1 and P2 agreements. However, a reading of Ext.P3 final determination order shows that petitioner did not file any objection before the 2nd respondent nor did the petitioner file any objections to the proposals. It is for that reason, Ext.P3 Final Determination Order was passed on 19/11/2003, fastening liability on the petitioner to pay the dues. Even thereafter, petitioner was negligent and that is evident from the fact that he filed appeal against Ext.P3 only on 31/8/07 almost four years after Ext.P3. The appeal was rejected by Ext.P5 order on the ground of delay. This also cannot WPC 7918/08 :2 : be faulted as it is the settled position that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay. It is in this circumstances, recovery proceedings have been initiated. 2. True the petitioner contended that he had no permanent employees and that he had possession of the vehicle only for three months. These questions of fact ought to have been urged by the petitioner before the original authority while passing orders on Ext.P3, which having not been done, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge on these issues raised for the first time before this court. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp