IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 2210 of 2002(K) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. C.K.RAJENDRAN, S/O. KESAVAN, RESHMA NIVAS, MULAKKUZHA P.O., CHENGANNUR. 2. K.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUSHPAMANGALATH, ELAMANOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. K.S.RAJESH, S/O. BALAN, DEEPTHI, KURAMPALA, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVOCATES MR.MATHEW JOHN (K) MR. BABY THOMAS RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 2210 of 2002(K) C.M.P. NO. 3910/2002 IN OP.No. 2210 of 2002 DISMISSED SD/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE 20.2.2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.2001. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No. 2210 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim that they are abkari workers, who were attached to Foreign Liquor Shops FL-No.45 of Pathanamthitta Excise Range. They submitted applications for registration under the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since no action was taken on their applications, the petitioners filed O.P. No. 22580 of 2001 before this court seeking to expedite consideration of their applications. The original petition was disposed of by judgment dated 1.8.2001 directing the respondent to pass final orders on the applications submitted by the petitioners. Thereafter, the applications of the petitioners were considered along with three other applications, that were pending before the respondent and by Ext.P2 order the claims of the petitioners for registration under the Act have been rejected. The above original petition is filed challenging the said proceedings of the respondent evidenced by Ext.P2. 2. Though notice has been served on the respondent there O.P.No. 2210 of 2002 - 2 - was no appearance for the respondent. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. Mathew John appearing for the petitioners. 3. According to the petitioners, they had produced Ext.P1, staff attendance register before the respondent. They also claim that they had produced their wage slips to evidence their employment, before the respondent. According to them, the said items of evidence have not been considered or even adverted to by the respondent. Since the counsel for the respondent is not available, it is not possible to ascertain the stand of the respondent in this regard. However, it is to be noted that though the Original Petition is of the year 2002, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in this matter. Therefore, I shall proceed to consider the contentions of the petitioner as remaining un-controverted. 4. It may be seen from Ext.P2 that the claim of one Anil Kumar has been granted and he has been directed to be registered, relying on the wage slips produced by him. There does not appear to be any other item of evidence in existence in support of his claim. Therefore, the respondent ought to have considered the claim of the petitioners also in the light of the wage slips if any produced by them. Since Ext.P1 attendance O.P.No. 2210 of 2002 - 3 - register has been produced in the court and photostat copies of the wage slips also shown, by the counsel for the petitioners, I feel that a further opportunity should be given to the petitioners to substantiate their claim for registration before the respondent. 5. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent evidenced by Ext.P2 in so far as it relates to the petitioners in this Original Petition. There will be a further direction to the respondent to consider the claims of the petitioners afresh, after giving them an opportunity to produce all items of evidence in support of their claims including Ext.P1 and the photo copies of the wage slips that they are in possession of. They shall also be heard before the final decision. Such decision shall be taken and orders shall be passed by the respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of on the above terms. K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE rhs