M.Dineshan vs The District Executive Officer on 4 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 20786 of 2002(Y)


1. M.DINESHAN, W/O. KUNHIRAMAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ

                For Respondent  :SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE,SC,KMTWF BOARD

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

 Dated :04/01/2008

 O R D E R
                       C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  ....................................................................
                                O.P. No.20786 of 2002
                  ....................................................................
                   Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008.

                                         JUDGMENT

Heard counsel for the petitioner and read counter affidavit filed in the

case. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 whereunder petitioner is directed

to pay contribution of Rs.5,301/- towards Motor Transport Workers Welfare

Fund. Petitioner’s claim is that he is only an employee in a stage carriage.

The counter affidavit filed does not contain any relevant detail about the

enquiry conducted and the findings of the Executive Engineer.

Adjudication of liability has to be based on facts after conducting enquiry.

It is stated in the counter affidavit that demand was raised for 1999-2000

and 2000-2001 and the same pertains to a stage carriage. However, nothing

is stated as to whether any amount is paid or recovered from the petitioner.

The counter affidavit also does not state the number of employees for whom

demand is raised. The amount demanded is so low that it does not appear to

be pertaining to a stage carriage where minimum 4 to 5 employees are

engaged for operation. In view of the irresponsible counter affidavit filed

by first respondent, I am constrained to interfere with the demand. The

O.P. is accordingly allowed quashing Ext.P1 demand against the petitioner,

2

but with direction to the first respondent to identify the operating owner of

the vehicle, issue notice to him giving details of enquiry if any conducted by

him or conduct enquiry and determine liability for the workers after giving

names, addresses and registration numbers of the workers and issue

assessment order.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms