IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WA.No. 2253 of 2009() --------------------- (JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.17168/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.) APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE OP ---------------------------------- T.P.JOSHY, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, THOTTUPURATH HOUSE, KALAVANKODAM PO CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE OP ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. THE INSPECTOR, TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM. 4. T.K.PUSHKARAN, S/O.KUNJIKOCHU, THANDEL HOUSE, P.O., PADINJARE KODIKULAM, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WE FOR R3 SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR FOR R4 SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.2253 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that appellant is liable to pay Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund contribution as employer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board Act. Counsel for the appellant relied on decision of the Supreme Court in JOSEPH JOSEPH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS reported in 2002 (3) SCC 8 and contended that at the maximum appellant only assisted the 4th respondent in the conduct of the toddy shop and so much so, recovery could not be made from him as he is not the employer. Standing Counsel for the third respondent referred to judgment of this court in ARINGATH KELAN VS. STATE OF KERALA reported in 2006(4) ILR Kerala Series 721 wherein this court distinguished the above judgment of the Supreme Court. Even though there can be no controversy on the legal position that only the “employer” answering 2 the description of that term contained in the Act can be made liable, there is nothing to indicate that licencee should always be the employer. If licencee transfers the right to carry on business to another person and such person conducts the business in toddy, certainly he will be the employer liable to pay contribution for the employees. In this case, the learned Single Judge has referred to the final determination order produced by the third respondent in the W.P.(C) as Ext.R3(e) wherein the adjudicating authority has recorded the evidence given by the employees of the very same toddy shop stating that appellant was exclusively running the toddy shop and the toddy shop was in his control and management. We do not think there is any scope for interference with clear findings of fact entered by the adjudicating authority based on evidence given by employees of the toddy shop who are the right people to give evidence as to who was their employer, who gave them wages for the work done. We, 3 therefore, do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms