IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24288 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- HAMSAKUTTY, AGED 38, S/O. IBRAHIM, PANGINIKADAN HOUSE, KAITHACHIRA, MANNARKAD. BY ADV. MR. P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON MR. M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALAKKAD-678 001. 4. T.P.HAMSA, THAVALAPARA HOUSE, KUNDIPUZHA, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. R1 AND R2 BY SERNIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU R3 BY ADV. MS. I .SHEELA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 24288 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondents 1 to 3 to realize the amount stated as due to the 3rd respondent towards the contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund, which according to the petitioner is not correct or sustainable as he has already cleared the entire liability ever since the vehicle bearing No. KL 9 K 407 came to his hands from 4th respondent by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement and thereafter by virtue of necessary entries made in Ext.P2 Certificate of Registration. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, if any liability is outstanding in respect of any of the employees for the period from 19.5.2005, the date of Ext.P1 agreement, the petitioner is very much ready and willing to satisfy the same. However, it is added that, the petitioner is not an employer of the vehicle in respect of the prior period and that the liability, if any, in this regard has to be cleared and sought to be recovered only from the 4th respondent. 3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. In view of the nature of relief sought to be extended, this Court does not find it necessary to issue WP (C) No. 24288 of 2009 : 2 : notice to the 4th respondent for the time being. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is hereby declared that, the petitioner is very much liable to satisfy the contribution as an 'employer' as admitted by the petitioner, in respect of the period from 19.5.2005, the date of Ext.P1 agreement, when the vehicle is stated as having come to the hands of the petitioner. With regard to the liability to pay contribution in respect of the prior period, it is for the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry to determine, who the actual employer as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Act was. This shall be done with proper notice to the petitioner, the 4th respondent and other interested parties, if any, and it shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, the vehicle bearing No. KL 9 K 407 shall not be seized, except to the extent, if any outstanding liability is there in respect of the period from 19.5.2005. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd