IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31986 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.SABU, KATTUKARAYIL HOUSE, ULLALA, THALAYAZHAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. P.X. BABU, PULLAMKULATHU HOUSE, ULLALA, THALAYZHAM PO., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILATION (S) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA STATE TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 3. SMT. SUDHAMONY, D/O. SREEDHARAN, VALLIYARAI HOUSE, THIRUVARPPU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 4. SREEDHARAN, S/O. VELU, VALLIYARAI HOUSE, AMAYANOOR P.O., AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 31986 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging Exts.P1 and P3 orders passed under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act by the original authority and the appellate authority, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay contributions under the Act in respect of the employees of the toddy shop concerned on the ground that the petitioners were the de facto employers of the toddy shop for the relevant period. The petitioners contend that the 3rd respondent was the licensee and the 4th respondent was the power-of-attorney holder of the licensee and under the Act, only the licensee is liable to pay contributions under the Act. The petitioners also challenge the findings in Exts.P1 and P3 to the effect that the petitioners were de facto employers of the employees of the toddy shop. Therefore, they seek the following reliefs: “1. To call for the records connected with the case leading to Ext. P1 and P3 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2. To direct the respondents not to proceed against the petitioners for the recovery of the amount demanded in Ext. P1 since they have not conducted the toddy shop No. 20 of Vaikom range for the year 1999-2000.” 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. In view of my decision in Aringath Kelan v. State of Kerala and others, I.L.R. 2006(4) Ker.721, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 2823/2003, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that only licensees of toddy shops are liable to pay contributions under the Act, insofar as those decisions categorically W.P.C. No. 31986/09 -: 2 :- hold that even other persons who may be held to be de facto employers of the employees are liable to pay contributions under the Act. As regards the contention of the petitioners against the findings of fact regarding the petitioners being de facto employers of the toddy shop, on a reading of Exts.P1 and P3, I am satisfied that the finding was entered on the basis of evidence on record and there is nothing perverse in such finding. In fact, the petitioners could not produce any acceptable material to controvert the findings in Exs.P1 and P3 to that effect. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.