IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 32399 of 2010(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.K.SASANKAN, S/O.LATE C.V.KUNHUKUTTAN `CHARANGATTU', KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 544. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KTWWF BOARD, AIMS, PONEKKARA P.O., KOCHI-41. BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE,S.C, K.T.W.W.F.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.32399 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 22nd October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late Sri.C.V.Kunhukuttan alleged to be the licencee of toddy shops mentioned in Exts.P1 to P3 notices. As per Exts.P1 to P3, the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent for an enquiry under Section 8 of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act. This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P1 to P3 notices and seeking such other consequential reliefs. In view of the order that I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to consider the rival contentions. Admittedly, Exts.P1 to P3 are only notices informing the petitioner to appear before the respondent for an enquiry under section 8 of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the subsequent documents received by him namely, Exts.P4 and P5 would reveal the fact that late father of the petitioner was not the licencee in respect of the said toddy shops. Those are matters to be considered by the respondent during the enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not participate in the enquiry which was to be held on 8.2.2010. It is submitted that, in fact, the petitioner has requested the respondent to adjourn the same till he WP(C).No.32399/2010 2 obtains the information under the Right to Information Act in respect of the details regarding the names of the licencees and such other details. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the respondent. 3. The learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that even the said request from the petitioner for granting time was submitted only after the date fixed for the enquiry. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the petitioner had submitted such an application for adjourning the enquiry on 6.2.1010 itself and he is yet to receive any orders of assessment. Taking into account the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- In case the respondent has not yet completed the enquiry under Section 8 of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity to participate in the enquiry and to produce necessary documents. Even if the enquiry was over but the orders are not passed, then also the order of assessment shall not be passed before affording such opportunity to the petitioner as directed above. For that purpose, the respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a WP(C).No.32399/2010 3 copy of this judgment and finalise the enquiry and pass orders thereon within a further period of three months thereafter. In case the respondent has already completed the enquiry under Section 8 of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act and passed orders of assessment, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith for the purpose of enabling him to resort to the appellate remedy. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS