IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 391 of 2010(Y)
1. AUGUSTINE, S/O. THANKACHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR,
3. OMANAKUTTAN, S/O. NANU,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)
For Respondent :SRI.RENIL ANTO,SC,KTWWF BOARD (TODDY WO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :25/02/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO.391 OF 2010
............................................
DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1
order under Section 8(1) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund
Act, demanding contribution to the Welfare Fund. The total amount of
contribution demanded is Rs.4,05,000/- as on May, 2009. According to
the petitioner, he had received a copy of the order on 3.7.2009. But, on
26.7.2009, he was arrested by the Chavara police in Crime No.135 of
2008, a case involving illicit spirit. Since he was in judicial custody, he
could not challenge Ext.P1 by filing an appeal within the time
prescribed. Therefore, he submitted Ext.P2 appeal before the first
respondent, accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay.
However, by Ext.P3 order, the petition as well as appeal have been
rejected on the ground that there is no provision in the Act for
condonation of delay.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 order was
passed without hearing the petitioner, that he was not the licensee of
Wpc 391/2010 2
the shop, that he has no liability to pay the welfare fund contribution
that is demanded and that he is entitled to have the delay in filing the
appeal condoned.
3. The counsel for the second respondent, Mr.Renil Anto,
opposes the contentions of the petitioner by pointing out that there is
no provision in the Act for condonation of delay. It is pointed out that
the petitioner was given ample opportunities to plead and prove his
case during the enquiry under Section 8(1) of the Act. The petitioner
also admits that he had received a copy of the order on 3.7.2009.
Therefore, there are no grounds for condonation of delay, as rightly
held in Ext.P3.
4. I find that there is no provision in the Act for condonation of
delay. Therefore, Ext.P3 is perfectly justified, in the facts and
circumstances of the case. In view of the fact that the petitioner had
not filed the appeal within the time prescribed, there are no grounds for
allowing the prayer for a direction to entertain the appeal in spite of the
delay. However, the counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to
pay the amount that is demanded in instalments. I feel that the prayer
Wpc 391/2010 3
for instalments can be granted.
5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of
permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts due and payable by him as
per the determination order Ext.P1, in six equal monthly instalments
starting from 15.3.2010. All proceedings for recovery of the amounts
demanded shall be kept in abeyance till the amounts are paid in
instalments as stipulated above. If there are consecutive defaults on the
part of the petitioner of two monthly instalments, the respondents shall
be free to initiate recovery proceedings in accordance with law.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk