IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 31309 of 2002(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.V.JOHN, KUZHIKALAVALAYIL, MEKHAZHOOR, MYLAPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.DEEPA DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR (R.R), PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. K.N.SOMAN, KALLUKAYIL HOUSE, MEKKAZHUR, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN,S C. R2 AND R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 53009 OF 2002 IN OP 3130-9 OF 2002 DISMISSED. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 30.7.2001 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 31.1.2001 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER (RT) NO. 1203/2002 LBR OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 17.5.2002 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 10.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE SHOWING THE PARTICULARS OF THE EMPLOYEES. EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE TO EXT.P2 ORDER. EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE TO EXT.P5 ORDER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 31309 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board. Even though petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings on the ground that multiple adjudication orders are issued for the same period, it is stated in the counter affidavit that one additional order of adjudication was issued only to cover one employee who was omitted in the original adjudication order. It is seen that for three vehicles operated by the petitioner for four years, demand is made only for six workers. It makes no difference whether the adjudication is under single order or two orders. If a worker is not covered in the original adjudication order, it is always open to the adjudicating officer to make supplementary order to cover the omitted worker. O.P. therefore fails and is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2