IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14458 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.V.KARUNAKARAN, MULLOOR VEEDU, E.S.I. ROAD, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SSMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 14458/2007. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DT. 29-2-2000. EXT.P2 INTIMATIONDT. 30-8-1999. EXT.P3 INTIMATIONO DT. 30-8-1999. EXT.P4 APPEAL DT. 3-4-2000. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 21-2-2007. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 14458 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 22nd May, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a motor transport undertaking. By Ext. P1 final determination order, contributions payable by the petitioner under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act have been assessed and he had been directed to pay the said amount. Against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government, taking the contention that the two employees in respect of whom contributions have been assessed by the final determination order has been paid all amounts due to them and therefore the petitioner is not liable to pay the amounts assessed as per Ext. P1 final determination order. By Ext. P5 order, the Government has rejected the appeal holding that such a contention was never taken before the original authority. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P5 orders. The contention of the petitioner is that to the two employees mentioned in Ext. P 1 order, Rs.20,000/- each has been paid and therefore no contributions are payable in respect of those employees. 2. From Ext. P1 order, I find that that order is completely in favour of the petitioner. During the proceedings before the original authority, all contentions of the petitioner were accepted and only in respect of admitted employees contributions were assessed. 3. Even otherwise, payment of contribution under the Act does not depend on a contract between the employer and the employee. Payment of contribution under the Act is statutory in nature and the employer covered by the Act is statutorily bound to pay the contribution. The employer and employee cannot enter into a private contract between themselves absolving the employer from liability to pay contribution in respect of employees. The fact that the employees have issued Exts.P2 and P3 receipts in full and final settlement of all W.P.C. No. 14458/07. -: 2 :- benefits due to them from the employer does not absolve the employer from his statutory obligations to pay contribution under the Act. That being so, I do not find any merit in the contentions in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/