IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 9220 of 2005(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.J.ANTONY, CHERUVALLIL HOUSE, EZHUPUNA NORTH, VIA ERAMALLOOR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (TR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WELFARE FUND BOARD, HARIPPAD P.O. ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECERETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA. R1 BY SHRI.K.HARILAL, SC R2 & R3 BY SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9220/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 12/10/1995. P2 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 21/11/2001 ISSUED BY GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA TO PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 01/09/2001 ISSUED BY CORPORATION BANK, EZUPPUNNA TO PETIITONER. P4 : COPY OF REVIVED PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 15/06/2001. P5 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF FIRMS, TRIVANDRUM DATED 30/07/2001. P6 : COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 07/01/2002 ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP NO.38932/2001. P7 : COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2000-01 DATED 01/11/2001 ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER. P8 : COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2001-02 DATED 28/10/2002 ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER. P9 : COPY OF RR NOTICE DATED 27/10/2003 FOR THE YEAR 2001-02 ISSUED BY R3 TO PETITIONER. P10 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02/12/2003 ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP NO.37208/2003. P11 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 06/07/2004 ISSUED BY R2 TO PETITIONER. P12 : COPY OF RR NOTICE DATED 09/12/2004 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE RR ACT BY R3 TO PETITIONER. P13 : COPY OF RR NOTICE DATED 13/12/2004 ISSUED BY R3 UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE RR ACT TO PETITIONER. P14 : COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 17/01/2005 FOPR THE YEAR 2002-03 ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9220 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's case is that the workers for whom motor transport workers welfare fund contribution is demanded were his partners. However, learned standing counsel for 1st respondent submitted that petitioner was paying wages to the workers who are driver, conductor and cleaner. The demand is for six workers and the demand raised is for the years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. If employees for whom demand is raised were petitioner's partners, then I see no reason why they did not come before this Court as petitioners along with the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner has not chosen to make them as respondents in the writ petition. It is not known whether petitioner is still in business or petitioner has sold the vehicle, which he was operating as its registered owner. Petitioner's contentions were rejected by the adjudicating officer and also by the appellate authority. However, it is seen from the adjudication order that the employees for whom demand is raised have also given statement that they were partners along with petitioner. However, there is no statement in the adjudication order that the workers for whom demand is raised are registered and WP(C) No. 9220/2005 -2- continued to be beneficiaries of the Organisation. This Court has consistently taken the view that demand could be made only for registered workers so that the benefit should reach the workers for whom recovery is made. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing 1st respondent to verify whether the employees for whom contributions demanded are registered workers and whether they continue in the rolls as motor workers under the Welfare Fund. Recovery could be made only for those of petitioner's workers who are in the rolls of the Organisation as beneficiaries. Petitioner will produce copy of the judgment before 1st respondent for verification whether the employees for whom demand is raised are registered for limiting recovery only for those who are registered and continue to be in the Rolls. First respondent is directed to issue a proceeding after verification as directed above before recovery. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg