IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24763 of 2004(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.GANESH, S/O.SREEKANDAN, NARAYANI NILAYAM, P.O.KADANNAPPILLY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KANNUR. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY NO.1, KANNUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADANNAPPILLY VILLAGE OFFICE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. C.SREEKANTH, ADUTHILA, PAZHAYANDI, KANNUR. 5. C.GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHAMMENCHERI HOUSE, KADANNAPPILLY, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE,SC,KMTWF BOARD FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DETERMINATION ORDER NO. C 635/99 DATED 23.9.1999 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.10.1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 21.3.2003 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 24763 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of motor transport workers welfare fund contribution on the ground that the employees for whom demand is raised are his brothers and they are running the business in partnership. This Court vide interim order dated 19.8.2004 directed the first respondent to verify whether employees are petitioner's brothers. First respondent has produced certificate from the Village Officer stating that the employees involved are not brothers of the petitioner. However, counsel submitted that they are relatives though not direct brothers. I do not think there is any bar against petitioner employing relatives as employees. No partnership deed or other evidence is produced to establish that business is run as a partnership firm. Consequently WPC is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2