High Court Kerala High Court

A.K.Lohithakshan vs The Dist.Officer on 7 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
A.K.Lohithakshan vs The Dist.Officer on 7 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 12679 of 1998(H)



1. A.K.LOHITHAKSHAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE DIST.OFFICER, KMTWWFB
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :07/12/2010

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                ....................................................................
                               O.P. No.12679 of 1998
                ....................................................................
               Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010.

                                       JUDGMENT

Challenge is against revenue recovery proceedings for recovery

of arrears of Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund in respect of a

stage carriage which was owned and operated by the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, without transferring the Registration

Certificate of the vehicle, possession was given to the 4th respondent

on 15.9.1993 and therefore, 4th respondent is liable. The petitioner

has stated that the 4th respondent is called upon to pay Motor Transport

Workers Welfare Fund for the same vehicle and for that purpose he has

filed O.P. No.8291/1998 wherein petitioner herein is the 4th

respondent. However, on verifying with the Registry it is seen that this

court has disposed of O.P. No.8291/1998 directing enquiry in the

matter and the further direction therein is that if petitioner in that O.P.

was operating the vehicle and he has given statement in that respect,

then he is liable to pay Welfare Fund contribution for the workers and

the same is recoverable from him. The question of liability on

2

petitioner herein or the 4th respondent in the disposed of O.P., will

depend on as to who was operating the vehicle with the employees.

Since parties are the same in both the O.Ps., I feel the earlier judgment

should squarely apply herein as well. I, therefore, dispose of the O.P.

directing the first respondent to determine liability after fresh enquiry

based on the observations and findings in the judgment in O.P.

No.8291/1998 after hearing both the parties and if required, after taking

evidence from the employees. If liability is not finalised in terms of

the judgment in the other case, then fresh enquiry should be completed

without any delay and recovery should be based on the revised

adjudication orders or based on adjudication orders if already issued.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

pms