IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11475 of 2004(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.C.P. MAHUMOOD HAJI, SAYAD NAGAR, THALIPARAMBA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.P.VISWAMBARAN SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SRI.T.P.SAJID (THALASSERY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, KANNUR. 3. T.V.PRABHAKARAN S/O. KELU, THALORA P.O., VIA. THALIPARAMBA 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THALIPARAMBA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C. VARGHESE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DT.29.6.2002 OF R2. P2: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.1.12.2003 OF R4. P3: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL BEFORE R1 UNDER SECTION 8(5) OF THE KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND ACT, 1985 ON 9.1.2004 BY REGISTERED POST. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.11475 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of contribution demanded under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act for the two years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 totaling Rs.9,320/-. Even though petitioner has claimed that he himself is driving the lorry, it is seen from Ext.P1 that one V.Prabhakaran claims to be the driver and based on his statement, demand is raised for one employee i.e. the driver. However, address of the driver Mr.V.Prabhakaran is not given in Ext.P1. I feel the demand could be recovered from the petitioner only if the said driver is a registered worker. The W.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to verify whether the third respondent is a registered worker employed by the petitioner as driver and if so, to recover the arrears and if he is not one of the registered workers, then to cancel the demand raised against the petitioner. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms