IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27116 of 2007(C)
1. JAYALAL .C.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/09/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.27116 OF 2007-C
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2007.
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this writ petition is against the orders passed
under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act 1969, fastening liability
on the petitioner’s father. Ext.P1 is a final determination for the
year 1997-98 and the appeal filed against the said order has been
rejected by Ext.P3. According to the petitioner, his father was not a
licensee and this fact is certified by the Assistant Excise
Commissioner in Ext.P4. On the contrary, the contention of the
standing counsel for the 2nd respondent Board is that the petitioner’s
father was conducting the toddy shops in question on the basis of
an agreement with the licensee and that this factual issue could be
proved with a documentary evidence. It is on that basis, the final
determination order was passed and which was confirmed by the
appellate authority in Ext.P3 order.
2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterates the plea
that his father was not a licensee. She refers me the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Joseph Joseph v. State of Kerala (ILR
2002(2) Kerala 390). Referring to this judgment, the learned
W.P.(C).NO.27116/2007 2
counsel submits that the petitioner’s father could not be treated as
an employer. However, on reading the judgment, I find that
ordinarily only the licensee can be made liable for the contribution
under the Act but, if in any particular case the authorities find that
besides the licensee any other person conducting the business is also
liable to contribute to the fund under the Act, such persons can also
be made liable provided the authorities discharge their legal duty
to assert and positively hold that such persons were also employers
vis-a-vis the workers and that they were conducting the business
with the legal authority either of the licensee or the licensing
authority. In this case the 2nd respondent could satisfy the
authorities that there was an agreement on the basis of which the
shops were being conducted by the petitioner’s deceased father and
oral evidence was also let in. Such factual findings rendered by the
authorities cannot be upset in a proceedings under Article 226
and I do not find any perversity in the findings.
In the circumstances, the orders are only to be upheld and I
do so. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. cl W.P.(C).NO.27116/2007 3 W.P.(C).NO.27116/2007 4