{"id":155349,"date":"2008-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-16T04:56:05","modified_gmt":"2018-09-15T23:26:05","slug":"s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund &#8230; on 21 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund &#8230; on 21 August, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 35083 of 2003(B)\n\n\n1. S.SEEMUN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE KERALA LABOUR WELFARE FUND BOARD,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. LABOUR WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :21\/08\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                          S.SIRI JAGAN, J\n             =======================\n             W.P(C)No.35083 &amp; 35084 of 2003\n             =======================\n          Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008.\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>      In these writ petitions, the petitioners are disputing their<\/p>\n<p>liability to be covered under the provisions of the Kerala<\/p>\n<p>Labour Welfare Fund Act.           In a connected writ petition &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>W.P.(C)No.28545 of 2008, this court had passed the following<\/p>\n<p>judgment:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8220;In these connected case, petitioners are small<br \/>\n     planters having cardamom cultivation in 3-4 acres of land.<br \/>\n     Petitioners are stated to be close relatives. Demand under<br \/>\n     the challenge is contribution towards Labour Welfare Fund<br \/>\n     under Kerala Labur Welfare Fund Act, 1975. According to<br \/>\n     the petitioners; demand is raised by clubbing the employees<br \/>\n     together and taking their number as above 10 in a day,<br \/>\n     which attracts liability under the Act by virtue of definition<br \/>\n     of establishment contained under Sec.2(f)(iii) of the Act,<br \/>\n     which makes land owner, of tea, rubber, coffee, cardamom,<br \/>\n     oil palm or cocoa, liable if 10 or more workers are employed<br \/>\n     in any day of the preceding 12 months.         The Standing<br \/>\n     Counsel for the Welfare Fund produced inspection report in<br \/>\n     one case, which shows that in the case of petitioner in WPC<br \/>\n     28642\/2003, when inspection was held on 20\/08\/2002, 17<br \/>\n     workers were found engaged in the estate, though the estate<br \/>\n     was only four acres.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           2. The inspection report produced in Court shows that<br \/>\n     when inspection was carried out petitioner was absent and<br \/>\n     the supervisor who was present, refused to sign inspection<br \/>\n     report or to accept the copy. I do not think refusal of the<br \/>\n     employer to receive copy of inspection report, affects validity<br \/>\n     of inspection. It is quite common that during crop season<br \/>\n     large number of employees are required for plucking the<br \/>\n     crop, which is inherent in the nature of the plantation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Since   the  Act   makes     cardamom    planter   liable  for<br \/>\n     contribution if employees engaged on a single day in an year<\/p>\n<p>W.P(C)No.35083 &amp; 35084 of 2003    &#8211; 2 &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>    is above 10, the Welfare Fund Inspector is entitled to<br \/>\n    demand contribution. However, since petitioners have not<br \/>\n    been issued copy of inspection report ans were not heard<br \/>\n    before final orders on demand of contribution are made,<br \/>\n    WP(C)s are disposed of directing the Welfare Fund Inspector<br \/>\n    to serve copy of the inspection report in the case of each of<br \/>\n    the petitioners and complete the adjudication after hearing<br \/>\n    them.   It will be open to the welfare fund inspector to<br \/>\n    conduct inspection at any time to determine the liability for<br \/>\n    the current year or for future. RR proceedings will be kept<br \/>\n    in abeyance for three months from now within which time,<br \/>\n    the inspector will serve the revised orders and send copies of<br \/>\n    the same to the recovery authorities to modify the demand<br \/>\n    and to recover the actual amount payable, if payment is not<br \/>\n    made in terms of revised demand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          These WP(C)s are disposed of as above.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     2. The petitioner has today produced before me a copy of<\/p>\n<p>the order passed pursuant to that judgment which reads thus:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;The Labour Welfare Fund Inspector, Idukki issued<br \/>\n    Shaw cause notice against the management ie. Sri.<br \/>\n    Subramanian,     Employer    Arunavilas   Cardamom    Estate,<br \/>\n    Vandiperiyar for remitting the Labour Welfare Fund<br \/>\n    Contribution consequent to the inspection held on 28.2.02.<br \/>\n    As the employer failed to remit the LWF Contribution<br \/>\n    revenue recovery steps had been initiated against the<br \/>\n    management of Arunavilas Estate. Then the management<br \/>\n    filed unit petition before the Hon&#8217;ble High Court of Kerala<br \/>\n    and the Hon&#8217;ble court Stayed the revenue recovery steps.<br \/>\n    Now as per the judgment read as 2nd above the Hon&#8217;ble High<br \/>\n    Court of Kerala disposed of the case directing the Labour<br \/>\n    Welfare Fund Inspector, Idukki to serve copy of the<br \/>\n    inspection Report in the case of each of the petitioners and<br \/>\n    complete the adjudication after hearing them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>          As per the above direction copy of the inspection<br \/>\n    report served to each of the petitioners along with the<br \/>\n    hearing notice under certificate of posting.      As nobody<br \/>\n    present as the hearing date on 26.6.07, an other notice<br \/>\n    dated 26.6.07 were served to the petitioners posting the<br \/>\n    hearing an 2.7.07 Sri. B.R. Aravindan, Advocate, Peermade<br \/>\n    filed Vakkalath an behalf of the management for attending<br \/>\n    the hearing subsequent hearing was also conducted on<br \/>\n    16.7.07, 23.7.07 &amp; 30.7.07. In the meanwhile some of the<\/p>\n<p>W.P(C)No.35083 &amp; 35084 of 2003    &#8211; 3 &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>    employees now working in the Arunavilas Cardamom Estate<br \/>\n    were also summoned for taking evidence. The management<br \/>\n    also filed the statement in this case the advocate requested<br \/>\n    one month&#8217;s time for producing the wages register, muster<br \/>\n    roll for the year 2001-02 and 2002-03 for verification. The<br \/>\n    management produced the above registers for verification.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           On going through the argument note, evidence of<br \/>\n    records filed by the management, I found that the<br \/>\n    Arunavilas cardamom estate is owned by 6 persons years<br \/>\n    back and the registration was not done at the period in<br \/>\n    question. As a part of evidence management have filed the<br \/>\n    certificate of registration of a registered owner issued by<br \/>\n    the tahsildar, Peermade Now the register submitted for the<br \/>\n    period of inspection it is seen that the name of 3 employees<br \/>\n    were written in the muster roll wages register maintained by<br \/>\n    the employer Sri. K. Subramanian, 2 employees by Sri.<br \/>\n    Murugan, 2 employees by Sri. Muraliu, 2, Employees by Sri.<br \/>\n    Arunan, 2 Employees by Smt. P Sarala the management<br \/>\n    informed that no time during the year they had employed 10<br \/>\n    or more employees and they had not maintained the register<br \/>\n    prescribed under casual, Temporary &amp; Badali workers act.<br \/>\n    The employees given the statement that only some workers<br \/>\n    were engaged during the plucking season in addition to the<br \/>\n    permanent workers. So it can not be proved either from the<br \/>\n    statement nor the records that the employer employed 10 or<br \/>\n    more workers in any day of the preceding 12 months as<br \/>\n    envisaged in section 2(f) (iii) of the Kerala Labour Welfare<br \/>\n    fund act 1975. In the inspection note also the number of<br \/>\n    employees written as 16 in total considering only one<br \/>\n    employer ie &#8211; Sri. S. Murali. After serving the inspection<br \/>\n    order they pointed out that Arunavilas Cardamom Estate is<br \/>\n    under the ownership of 6 persons.           So it cannot be<br \/>\n    determined from this that 10 or more workers were<br \/>\n    employed by the owners of Arunavilas estate.        Moreover<br \/>\n    physical verification could not be done as the date of<br \/>\n    inspection pertaining to the period 28.2.02. Hence the LWF<br \/>\n    Inspector come to the conclusion that this plantation will<br \/>\n    not come under the purview of the section 2(f)(iii) of the<br \/>\n    Kerala Labour Welfar fund Act, 1975 on the inspection date<br \/>\n    ie 28.2.02 and for remitting the contribution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           This order will not be a hindrance for determining the<br \/>\n    liability, if any noticed in present or for future inspection<br \/>\n    and the exemption is granted for the period in question<br \/>\n    only.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>W.P(C)No.35083 &amp; 35084 of 2003 &#8211; 4 &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>     3. In the above circumstances, it is only appropriate that<\/p>\n<p>the 2nd respondent passes appropriate orders taking into<\/p>\n<p>account the judgment and the order referred to above. This the<\/p>\n<p>2nd respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate<\/p>\n<p>within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n<p>judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>     These writ petitions are disposed of as above.<\/p>\n<p>                                      S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>rhs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund &#8230; on 21 August, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 35083 of 2003(B) 1. S.SEEMUN, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. THE KERALA LABOUR WELFARE FUND BOARD, &#8230; Respondent 2. LABOUR WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) The Hon&#8217;ble [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-155349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund ... on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund ... on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-15T23:26:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund &#8230; on 21 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-15T23:26:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1185,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008\",\"name\":\"S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund ... on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-15T23:26:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund &#8230; on 21 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund ... on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund ... on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-15T23:26:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund &#8230; on 21 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-15T23:26:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008"},"wordCount":1185,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008","name":"S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund ... on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-15T23:26:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-seemun-vs-the-kerala-labour-welfare-fund-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Seemun vs The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund &#8230; on 21 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155349","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=155349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}