IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29469 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.B.ANISH, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, PONATH HOUSE, P.O.AZHEEKODE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, 1ST FLOOR, DOOR NO.36/1662, HIGH ROAD, THRISSR -680 020. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOLLAM- 691 001. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, R2 & R3 BY SRI. K.S. MANU, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.29469 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 24th September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. In the matter of contribution to be effected under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, a final determination order was passed on 31.12.2001 by the second respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 21.2.2002 before the first respondent. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order passed in the said appeal. The petitioner contends that since he had to attend the rituals and other customary rites in relation to the death of his grandmother he could not appear before the appellate authority on 17.8.2010. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that he was not afforded with a proper and effective opportunity to pursue the appeal. Had he been given a proper opportunity, the petitioner would have effectively pursued the appeal and in which event, according to him, an order like the present one would not have been passed. Whatever that be, evidently, Ext.P5 was passed without hearing the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal that the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal were also not properly adverted to. In that view of the matter, it can be termed as an order passed without application of mind. On that short ground itself I am of the view WP(C).No.29469/2010 2 that Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 21.2.2002 against the final determination order dated 31.12.2001 passed by the second respondent, in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS