IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 22682 of 2001(A) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- E.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, ERRASSERY HOUSE, PERINJANAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1) THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP: BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR & REHABILITATION (S) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2) DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THRISSUR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL P. R2 BY SMT.I.SHEELADEVI, SC,KMTWF BOARD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.36982 OF 2001 IN OP.NO.22682 OF 2001. DISMISSED. 2-1-2008. Sd/- T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of the Final determination order No.ER 1039/FDO/99-00 dtd.17-5-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent. P2: Copy of medical certificate dtd.16-7-2001 issued by Dr.Suresh Babu to the petitioner. P3: Copy of appeal memorandum dtd.26-2-2001 filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. P4: Copy of petition dtd.26-2-2001 filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. P5: Copy of the order GO.Rt.No.828/2001/LBR., dtd.13/3/2001. P6: Copy of final determination order No.ER 1039/FDO/97-99 dated 30-7-1999 issued by the 2nd respondent. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( True copy ) P.A. to Judge. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No.22682 OF 2001-A. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1 final determination order passed by the competent authority and the order passed in an appeal therein. The appeal was rejected on the ground of delay in filing the same in the light of the fact that there was no provision to condone the delay and there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal also. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has employed three employees who were working temporarily for 15 days in a month. But when the final determination order was passed the contribution has been assessed on the ground that they had worked for the entire period of a month. The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Ext.P6 final determination order passed by the competent authority for the relevant years 1997-'98 and 1998-'99 which will show that the very same employees have been employed and worked only for 15 days per month, which fact was accepted by the authority while passing the final determination order. O.P.No.22682 OF 2001-A. 2 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents also. 4. In the remarks column of Ext.P1 order nothing is mentioned as to how the authority has assessed the contribution, whether it is a case where they have been working for 15 days or for the entire month. The petitioner is right in submitting that the said reasoning made by the authority is incorrect especially in the light of the assessment order for the period 1997-'98 and 1998-'99. Since the relevant aspects of the matter is not either seen considered by the authority or stated in Ext.P1, I find that Ext.P1 has not been passed in accordance with law after considering the relevant aspects. Therefore, Exts.P1 and P5 are quashed. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and pass a fresh order after hearing his objections and after considering the relevant materials. The same shall be done within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is allowed as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/