IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8439 of 2005(D)
1. E.J.SHAJI, S/O. E.J.JOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
5. THE COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.DIVAKARAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :31/07/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C) No.8439 of 2005
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 31st day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of
arrears of motor transport workers welfare fund contribution for the
year 2002-03. Even though petitioner has a case that adjudication
order is issued without notice to him, learned standing counsel
furnished the details of enquiry conducted on 06/09/2003, where it
was found that petitioner was operating stage carriage with three
workers, whose names are also furnished in Court. Even though
notice was issued, petitioner did not turn up and therefore
preliminary determination order was issued on 13/01/2004
determining liability at Rs.31,719/-. According to respondent,
though notice for final adjudication was issued asking the petitioner
to appear on 31/03/2004, petitioner did not chose to appear on that
day and therefore, the demand was finalised. Petitioner did not file
appeal challenging the final determination order in time and belated
appeal filed was rejected as the appellate authority has no power to
condone delay. Even though petitioner was directed to pay
Rs.10,000/- as condition for stay, learned standing counsel
submitted that petitioner has not remitted the amount. It is not
WP(C) No.8439/2005
-2-
known whether the full amount is recovered as there was no stay
during pendency of the writ petition. If the amount is not paid,
then full amount should be recovered from petitioner. Since
petitioner has not complied with the interim order, recovery can be
continued without any delay. However, if petitioner has a case that
he did not have a permit and if the persons for whom demand is
raised are not registered workers, then petitioner is directed to
approach the District Executive Officer, Wayanad and produce the
details for him to verify the records and if workers are not
registered workers and petitioner was not in business for the whole
year he will make rectification and revise the demand and issue
revised proceedings. If any excess is collected in recovery
proceedings, petitioner can claim refund of the same amount.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
jg