IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25849 of 2008(B) PETITIONER: ------------------------- GOPACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR ONATTU HOUSE, ONAKKUR VILLAGE, PERIYAPURAM.P.O, PAMBAKKUDA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KANNUR. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHADEVI R2 BY ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS - SC FOR ABKARI WELFARE FUND BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25849 of 2008 B ------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is one of the licensees of arrack shop Nos.1 to 88 in Hosdurg Range for the year 1989-90. The licence issued to the petitioner and other partners was cancelled by Ext.P1 order dated 30.10.1989. The shops were placed under departmental management from 1.11.1989 and it was entrusted to three persons as evidenced by Ext.P2. The Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Act was introduced with effect from 1.1.1990. According to the petitioner, apprehending that the Act contemplated a levy for a period even prior to 1.1.1990 and as directed by the Excise Department, he had remitted advance contribution. But later when recovery proceedings were initiated, he had approached this court with O.P.No.13018/92, which was disposed of directing the 2nd respondent Welfare Fund Inspector to recalculate the dues of the petitioner, after deducing the amount already paid by him. Ext.P5 order was passed by the 2nd respondent in this regard. W.P.(C).No.25849 of 2008 :: 2 :: 2. The same was challenged by the petitioner in O.P.No.15705/98, which was disposed of under Ext.P6 judgment relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy of an appeal under the Act. The appeal was disposed of under Ext.P7 order dated 6.12.2006 requiring the original authority to pass revised orders on the basis of the findings given in the appellate order. Later, a revised order was passed by the 2nd respondent on 27.3.2007 and this was again challenged in Ext.P9 appeal before the 1st respondent. But the appeal was rejected under Ext.P10 order on the premise that Ext.P9 appeal was not against a determination order, which alone is maintainable under the provisions of the Act. Exts.P5 and P6 orders of the 2nd respondent and Ext.P10 order of the Government are challenged in this writ petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The reasons stated in Ext.P10 by the Government, to the effect that the appeal is not against the final determination passed by the assessing authority, does not seem to be correct. W.P.(C).No.25849 of 2008 :: 3 :: The earlier order passed by the Government Ext.P7 was against Ext.P5 order of determination passed by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P7 directed the 2nd respondent to pass a revised order and it is accordingly that Ext.P8 revised order has been passed. Ext.P8 is to be construed as a fresh determination and if that be so, Ext.P9 appeal was maintainable. The reason stated in Ext.P10 to the contra is unsustainable. 5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed in part. Ext.P10 is quashed. The Government is directed to treat Ext.P9 as an appeal against Ext.P8 order and pass a fresh order thereon, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//