IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2520 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A. SAMUEL, PLAMKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, MEKKOZHOOR, MYAPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR(RR) PATHANAMTHITTA,. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MYLAPRA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY SC SRI. HARILAL BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.2520 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT In Ext.P1 judgment rendered in WP(c).No.14203/04 this court directed the Executive Officer to verify whether the petitioner's son was registered under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and whether his registration is continuing, to recover his contribution, if he is registered. Admittedly, in pursuance to Ext.P1 judgment, Ext.P2 notice of enquiry was issued to the petitioner requiring him to be present for an enquiry. According to the first respondent the petitioner was absent and therefore he confirmed the determination as per Ext.P6. On receipt of Ext.P6, petitioner filed Ext.P7 reply reiterating that he was present for enquiry in response to Ext.P2 notice. It is stated that despite the contention raised in Ext.P7, steps are being taken for realizing the amount from the petitioner on the WP(c).No.2520/2009 2 basis that his son was a registered employee under the Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and Scheme. 2. A reading of Ext.P6, the order issued by the first respondent shows that the final determination order that he had already passed has been confirmed for the only reason that the petitioner was absent in the enquiry in pursuance to Ext.P2 notice. Although, the petitioner's absence or presence is a matter of dispute, in my view, even if the petitioner was absent, the first respondent had the obligation of verify at least his own record and confirm the registration of the petitioner's son. Such a consideration of the issue is not seen reflected in Ext.P6 and therefore I am Inclined to set aside Ext.P6 for that reason. Accordingly, Ext.P6 stands set aside and the first respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry in pursuance to Ext.P1 judgment and pass fresh orders in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.2520/2009 3