IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 20786 of 2002(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.DINESHAN, W/O. KUNHIRAMAN VAYALAMBRA, PERIKKALAM POST, ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKER'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, KANNUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE,SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.35517/2002 IN OP NO.20786/2002 DISMISSED: 4.1.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF R.R. NOTICE DT.13.5.2002. P2: TRUE TYPEWRITTEN COPY OF REQUEST DT.10.6.2002. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF GOVT. ORDER DT.28.11.1995. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.20786 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and read counter affidavit filed in the case. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 whereunder petitioner is directed to pay contribution of Rs.5,301/- towards Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. Petitioner's claim is that he is only an employee in a stage carriage. The counter affidavit filed does not contain any relevant detail about the enquiry conducted and the findings of the Executive Engineer. Adjudication of liability has to be based on facts after conducting enquiry. It is stated in the counter affidavit that demand was raised for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and the same pertains to a stage carriage. However, nothing is stated as to whether any amount is paid or recovered from the petitioner. The counter affidavit also does not state the number of employees for whom demand is raised. The amount demanded is so low that it does not appear to be pertaining to a stage carriage where minimum 4 to 5 employees are engaged for operation. In view of the irresponsible counter affidavit filed by first respondent, I am constrained to interfere with the demand. The O.P. is accordingly allowed quashing Ext.P1 demand against the petitioner, 2 but with direction to the first respondent to identify the operating owner of the vehicle, issue notice to him giving details of enquiry if any conducted by him or conduct enquiry and determine liability for the workers after giving names, addresses and registration numbers of the workers and issue assessment order. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms