IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 237 of 2011(F) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3656/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): -------------------------------------- AIPU JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, PANKETH HOUSE, ELAMKULAM, VYTTILA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI-19. BY ADVS. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, SRI.P.V.LONACHAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, SIVARAMA MENON ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- REVIEW PETITION No.237 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd June, 2011 ORDER This review petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 23.3.2010 in WPC No.3656 of 2010. The petitioner is the review petitioner. 2. According to the review petitioner, he was the Managing Partner of a firm that was operating stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KCE-2970 along with other partners. He was the registered owner of the stage carriage. As per the terms of the partnership deed, the partners were to work as Driver, Conductor, Door checker etc. without any remuneration. The partners were to be entitled only to the share of profits. Other workers were engaged only on temporary basis. However, without considering the above facts, the first respondent passed final determination orders for the years 1989-1996 under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) which were produced as Exts.P2 and P2(a) R.P.No.237 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.3656 of 2010 2 respectively in the writ petition. Statutory appeals filed against the said orders were dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.17813 of 2004 before this Court challenging the said orders. The said writ petition was allowed, the orders under challenge were set aside and fresh orders were directed to be passed. Accordingly, the authority passed Ext.P5 order, which was under challenge in the writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition was that though the partners of the partnership firm had been excluded while determining the contributions due, one person by name Mohammed was included as a Driver of the petitioner, without any justification. According to the petitioner, the said Mohammed had worked for the petitioner only on temporary basis and that too, on a few occasions. 4. After considering the contentions of the petitioner, as per the judgment sought to be reviewed, it was found that there were no grounds to interfere with Ext.P5. Therefore, it has been held that the challenge against R.P.No.237 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.3656 of 2010 3 Ext.P5 has to fail. On the above basis, though the writ petition had to be dismissed, since the petitioner made a last plea for permission to pay the amounts due in instalments, he was granted permission to pay the balance amount in three equal monthly instalments. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the payments stipulated have been paid without any default and no further amounts are due or payable by the petitioner at present. 5. The present complaint of the review petitioner is that one C.D. alias Thadavose who has been included in Ext.P5 order as a worker is actually a partner of the firm. However, according to the petitioner, the above aspect could not be brought to the notice of either the authority or this Court for the reason that the said partnership deed was not available at that time. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a fresh opportunity to produce the said document before the authority and for a direction to consider the said contention of his, on the merits. 6. This is a review petition and the jurisdiction of review being a limited one, has to be exercised only with R.P.No.237 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.3656 of 2010 4 great circumspection. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error or infirmity in the judgment that is sought to be reviewed. The only case is that, the fact that the person referred to by the petitioner was a partner of the firm had not been brought to the notice of either the authority or this Court. 7. I notice that the determination order Ext.P5 has been passed pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17813 of 2004 in which the petitioner had challenged an earlier determination order. The petitioner had no case either in the said writ petition or in the present writ petition, WP(C) No.3656 of 2010 that there was any such partner in his partnership firm. The petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunity to produce all necessary evidence to prove his case and his case has been considered by the authorities on the materials available at the relevant time. Ext.P5 order was also under challenge before this Court and the challenge against the same has been repelled by the judgment that is sought to be reviewed. I do not find any justification for R.P.No.237 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.3656 of 2010 5 reopening the proceedings at this length of time. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE