IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No.1978 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.85/2000 Dated 20/02/2006 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- ABDUL KAREEM, S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF E.SULFIKAR, SHEEBA MANZIL, VANIYAMBALM P.O., VIA, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR) SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:- ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MALAPPURAM. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1978 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The original petition was filed by the petitioner, inter alia questioning the demands raised by the respondents for payment of arrears of contribution under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, for the assessment years 1988 to 1993. (2). The authorities under the Act had passed orders of assessment for the afore-said years. Those assessment orders were questioned by the petitioner before the second respondent, inter alia contending that the petitioner has not engaged the persons mentioned in the demand notice as his employees and he along with his two sons were operating the vehicle. It was further stated that the petitioner and his sons have got valid driving licence and also the conductors badge. (3). The second respondent being of the opinion that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend his case, had remanded the matter to the assessing authority to re-hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. (4). After such remand, the assessing authority had summoned two persons, who, in their evidence has stated that they were in continuous employment with the petitioner. The assessing authority, taking into consideration the fresh evidence so adduced, has come to the conclusion W.A.No.1978 of 2007 -2- that the petitioner is liable to pay contribution under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act for the assessment years 1988 to 1993. Aggrieved by the said fresh order of assessment passed by the assessing authority, the assessee had filed an appeal before the State Government which is the appellate authority. The State Government, after considering the objections filed by the petitioner and the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the assessing authority has not committed any error whatsoever which would call for its interference. Accordingly, it has rejected the appeal. (5). The petitioner being aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the appellate authority, had questioned the same before this Court in O.P.No.85/2000. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 20th February, 2006 has rejected the original petition on the ground that Sri.Veeran, Sri.T.P.Hussain, Sri.A.P.Hussain and Sri.Mohammed Ali were regular employees working with the petitioner and therefore, has come to the conclusion that in writ jurisdiction it may not be proper to re-appreciate the evidence on record and to come to a different conclusion. (6). Aggrieved by the conclusions and findings of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner in the original petition is before us in this appeal. (7). Sri.Harikrishnan Ravindran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, sufficient opportunity of adducing evidence was not afforded to the petitioner by the assessing authority after the matter was remanded by the first appellate authority, and, further there was no proper enquiry. W.A.No.1978 of 2007 -3- (8). In order to verify the correctness or otherwise of the statement made by the learned counsel, we had directed the counsel to produce before us the orders of fresh assessment passed by the assessing authority for the assessment years in question. The learned counsel would inform us that the orders of assessment were not available with him. In the absence of the orders of assessment and the evidence that was adduced by the parties before the assessing authority, it may not be possible for us to appreciate the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. (9). In the instant case, it is the specific case of the respondents that, Sri.Veeran, Sri.T.P.Hussain, Sri.A.P.Hussain and Sri.Mohammed Ali were regular employees working with the petitioner in his stage carriage. If that be so, the petitioner is liable to pay the contribution under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the assessing authority, in our opinion, has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay the contribution under the afore-said provision. This aspect of the matter is appreciated by the first appellate authority with reference to the evidence on record and also the documents. In view of the clear findings by the assessing authority as well as by the appellate authority, it may not be proper for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence once again. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. We find no error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which calls for our interference. W.A.No.1978 of 2007 -4- Therefore, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (10). I.A.No.792 of 2007 is closed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS