IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 29590 of 1999(V) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.K.DASAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, ERAVATH VEEDU, TRIKKAKKARA, B.M.C. P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1) THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 2) THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3) THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, ERNAKULAM. 4) STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI. P.RAMAKRISHNAN R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.50390/1999 IN OP.NO.29590/1999-V. DISMISSED. 22.2.2008. Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT NO.EE-604/B2-18/92, DTD.31.8.1998 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE KL-T/B-4714. P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.12.10.1998. P3: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOITCE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR DTD.18/12/1998. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT NO.GO(Rt.) NO.2882/99/LBR, DTD.21.8.1999. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. ( true copy ) P.A. TO JUDGE. Kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= OP.No.29590 of 1999-V. ========================= Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the District Executive Officer which was confirmed in appeal by the Government asper Ext.P4, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition. The matter arises under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985. The petitioner herein is the owner of stage carriage bus KL-7/B-4714. Alleging that amounts are due from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 in respect of three employees he was issued provisional determination order. He raised an objection that he purchased the vehicle on 18.11.1997 only. The employer-employee relationship was also disputed. Rejecting his contentions Ext.P1 final determination order was passed. He challenged the same in an appeal which was dismissed by Ext.P4. The petitioner has come OP.No.29590 of 1999-V. -: 2 :- out by way of this original petition challenging the above orders. 2. The appellate authority noticed various contentions of the petitioner while disposing of the appeal. The petitioner contended that the actual purchase of the vehicle was on 18.11.1997 and therefore no assessment could have been made from June, 1997 onwards. The said argument was rejected by holding that in the sworn statement made by the petitioner on 18.6.1998 it is admitted that he was conducting the service of the stage carriage from 2.6.1997 and the registration was transferred in his name in November, 1997. A document showing the sale was also available among the records. The petitioner had also admitted that he had employed three workers and was paying wages to them. There was a further contention that the petitioner has not operated the vehicle for several days, but this was not substantiated by any cogent evidence. For all these reasons the appeal was dismissed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned OP.No.29590 of 1999-V. -: 3 :- Standing Counsel appearing for the Board and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statutory authority as well as the appellate authority have erred in finding that the vehicle was being operated from 2.6.1997 onwards, whereas actually the registration was transferred only in November, 1997. The above contention cannot be accepted in the light of the sworn statement made by the petitioner before the authority wherein he admitted conducting of service from 2.6.1997 engaging three workers who were being paid wages for their work. This is supported by the document evidencing the sale, as is evident from Ext.P4. It is true that the registration was transferred only in November, 1997. But once the possession was transferred after payment of consideration, the sale is complete. Unless he produce any cogent evidence to show that further formalities had to be complied with and the sale remained incomplete, the contention that registration was transferred on a later day will not advance OP.No.29590 of 1999-V. -: 4 :- his case. Further this is a case where the petitioner was found to be in possession of the vehicle from 2.6.1997 and the service was being conducted by him from that date onwards. It is a finding of fact based on the evidence available and it requires no interference in these proceedings. 5. Regarding the absence of employer-employee relationship also the authority found that the petitioner had clearly admitted that three workers are there and they were being paid wages also. The learned counsel raised another contention relying upon Clause 27 of the Scheme, which is also not sustainable. The said clause only says that every employee is required to be a member of the Fund from the date on which he completes three months continuous service. But once an employee became a member, welfare fund contribution is to be remitted from the date of entering service. The contention therefore that liability will arise only after 2.9.1997 is not correct. Lastly it was found in Ext.P4 that in view of the admissions made by petitioner, OP.No.29590 of 1999-V. -: 5 :- individual statements from the workers are not necessary. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the orders under challenge. The petitioner is directed to remit the balance amount by three equal monthly instalments starting from March, 2008. If the amount is not paid as above recovery can be proceeded with. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-