IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 26799 of 1999(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ C.K.AZHAKAPPAN, CHULLIYIL HOUSE, CHETHI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY MR.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN,ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY TO LABOUR, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY MR.MANOJ RAVI VARMA, SC,KMTWWF BOARD FOR R2 MR.V.V.SURENDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.26799/1999 2 ORDER ON C.M.P.No.45333/1999 IN O.P.No.26799/1999 DISMISSED. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE 27/02/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.(RT)No.220/90/LBR DATED 29.1.1990 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER G.O.(RT).No.2461/91/LBR DATED 7.10.1991 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER NO.EA.93/86-95/ADL.FDO DATED 8.4.1996 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF APPEAL DATED 1.8.1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER G.O.(RT)No.2412/99/LBR DATED 26.7.1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No. 26799 of 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order of final determination issued under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, which is confirmed in appeal through Ext.P5 order of the appellate authority. With respect to the years of 1986-1987 and 1988-1990, the appellate authority had set aside the final determination orders on the ground that the calculation of wages of employees adopted for 30 days was not correct, because it is proved that they were working only for 15 days in a month. Ext.P3 seems to be an additional order of final determination issued with respect to the years 1986 to 1995. Obviously, it relates to workers who were left to be included in the final determination orders issued earlier with respect of the years concerned. Ext.P4 is the appeal filed against Ext.P3 order. The main ground upon which the determination of amount disputed relates to the number of days for which the employee were engaged. On a perusal of Ext.P5 it is clear that there is no advertence to the said dispute, and it is evident that the petitioner has not raised the said ground O.P.No. 26799 of 1999 -2- at the time of hearing also. 2. The Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent had filed a statement, in which it is categorically stated that in Ext.P3 order the number of days of work is taken only as 15 days per month and not the full month, as alleged by the petitioner. It is specifically stated therein that the assessment is based on 15 days duty per month and the contribution is calculated on the basis of 8 hours work per day of 15 days. It is further stated that Ext.P3 was issued only in accordance with the directions contained in Exts.P1 and P2 appellate orders. The petitioner is not in a position to dispute the above said contention on the basis of any other materials. In view of the statement of the 2nd respondent, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioner. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE rhs