IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22703 of 2006(C)
1. A.D. MATHEWS, S/O.LATE A.L.DEVASSY.
... Petitioner
2. A.D. JOHN, S/O.LATE SRI.A.L.DEVASSY.
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUDN BOARD
3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR),
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 22703 of 2006
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
JUDGMENT
Admittedly, petitioners are the legal heirs of one
A.L.Devassy. On the strength of a power-of-attorney
executed by Sri Devassy in his favour, one K.F. Jacob was
the successful bidder of a foreign liquor shop and arrack
shops in Chittur Range of Palakkad District for the year
1992-93. On the basis that the welfare fund dues payable
were in default, revenue recovery steps were initiated by
Ext.P2. Thereupon A.L.Devassy filed O.P.19441/1997
before this Court and stay was obtained on condition that
Rs.1,30,000/- is deposited. It is stated that this deposit was
made, but however, the original petition filed by Sri Devassy
was dismissed for default, as per Ext.P3 judgment dated
9.8.2004.
2. Subsequently, being the legal heirs, the petitioners
filed Ext.P4 requesting for lifting the attachment on the
WP(C) 22703 of 2006
2
properties of the defaulter. That was declined by Ext.P5
and it is challenging Ext.P5 and the recovery proceedings,
this writ petition is filed.
3. Initially the contention raised was that Sri Jacob
was the licensee and he being the employer, the petitioners
or their deceased father could not be made liable for the
welfare fund dues. As already noticed, even going by the
averments in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, Jacob was the
power-of-attorney-holder of the petitioners’ father Late A.L.
Devassy. Therefore, the licensee is the deceased father of
the petitioners. If so, I cannot accept the plea that Jacob
should be taken as the licensee. If Devassy was the
licensee, he alone can be treated as the employer who is
liable to pay the dues under the Abkari Workers’ Welfare
Fund Act. In this case, going by the statement filed on
behalf of the 3rd respondent, an amount of Rs.1,86,701/- was
due as on 4.10.2006. Since the petitioners’ father is no
more and if the petitioners have inherited the estate of the
WP(C) 22703 of 2006
3
deceased defaulter, necessarily proceedings can be taken
against them and that cannot be faulted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners want to avail of the benefit of the Amnesty
Scheme in so far as the abkari dues are concerned.
According to him, if so, while making adjustments, this
liability also could be discharged. I leave it open to the
petitioners to pursue the matter and with that liberty, this
writ petition stands dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-