IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 31445 of 2004(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE ORIENTAL INSRUACE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, GOUND FLOOR, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE LABOUR WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, NOTICE FOR WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE CHIEF SECRETARIAT TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 5.6.2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 31445/04. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.25.4.04 BY R1 P2. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.15.7.04 TO R1. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.31445 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Insurance Company. They are challenging the proceedings under the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act initiated by Ext.P1 notice whereby they were directed to pay contributions under that Act. To Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 reply saying that since the petitioner's establishment is an establishment of the Central Government excluded from the purview of the provisions of the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act, they are not covered by the Act. As such, their contention is that they are not liable to pay contributions under the Act. The petitioner relies on certain judgments also in support of similarly constituted establishments of the Central Government. I am not inclined to go into that question at this point of time since pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, the 1st respondent is bound to issue an order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner has not been given a hearing before issuing Ext.P1 notice. Since the petitioner disputes the liability, w.p.c.31445/04 2 before issuing demand the petitioner should have been heard and after such hearing, the petitioner should also be favoured with a considered order, which they can challenge appropriately. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Ext.P1 would be treated as a show cause notice directing the petitioner to show cause as to why contributions under the Act should not be demanded from them. The petitioner has already filed Ext.P2 reply. The 1st respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass a considered speaking order in the matter as to the liability of the petitioner under the Act. Till such order is served on the petitioner, no further proceedings shall be taken for recovery of any contributions under the Act from the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.31445/04 3