M.V.Thomas vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 9260 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

 FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                 WP(C).No.4051 OF 2012(F)

PETITIONER:
      1     M.V.THOMAS
            AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. LATE VARGHESE,
            MANNAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENDUVAZHI,
            KOTHAMANGALAM.

     2     ADDL.P2.BIJOY THOMAS,
           AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. LATE M.V.THOMAS,
           MANNAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUKADAM P.O.,
           KOTHAMANGALAM IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
           24.06.2020 IN IA NO. 6593/2014.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
           SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE
           SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD
           SRI.P.G.PRAMOD
           SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU

RESPONDENTS:

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
           LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT,
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
           695 001.

     2     DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
           KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKER'S WELFARE FUND
           BOARD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -25.

           R1 SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,SENIOR GOVERNMENT
           PLEADER
           R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4051 OF 2012(F)        2


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of March 2021

This writ petition was originally filed by one M.V.Thomas,

challenging the Ext.P3 Determination Order and Ext.P4 Order

in appeal under the provisions of Kerala Motor Transport

Workers Welfare Fund. During the pendency of the writ

petition the writ petitioner died and consequently his son was

impleaded as additional petitioner No.2. The sum and

substance of the contention advanced in the writ petition is

that the primary authority as well as the appellate authority

erred egregiously while passing the Determination Order as

well as the Appellate Order since the workers included as per

the Determination Order are not the workers/employees of the

writ petitioner. In effect the contentions raised in the writ

petition are surrounded by various facts and circumstances

which were sorted out by the primary authority under the

provisions of the statute.

2. In order to arrive at the conclusions I have gone

through Ext.P3 Determination Order elaborately and finds that

the conclusions were arrived at by the statutory authority

taking into account various facts and circumstances and

evidence tendered by the workers and the owner of the Motor

transport. It is also clear from Ext.P3 that the owner of the

vehicle has not adduced any evidence on the other hand he

was represented through a third person. In effect after

appreciating the evidence, both documentary and oral the,

Authority came to a definite conclusion that the workers

except one Varghese who secured employment in KSRTC are

entitled to be the members of the Workers Welfare Fund and

the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay contribution to the

Welfare Fund. On appreciation of Ext.P3 it is clear that it was

passed after providing sufficient opportunity of participation to

the petitioner. In Ext.P4 Order the Government has considered

the matter elaborately and it was after re-appreciating the

findings rendered by the primary authority and taking into

account all documentary as well as oral evidence produced by

the parties before the Government the findings were arrived

at. On a reading of Ext.P4 I have no hesitation to hold that the

Government has considered the issue thread base and has

arrived at the conclusion that there is no illegality in the order

passed by the primary authority. The petitioner has not

advanced any case in this writ petition that the petitioner was

not heard or sufficient opportunity was not provided to the

petitioner while conducting the proceedings by the primary

authority as well as the appellate authority.

In that view of the matter and bearing in mind that a writ

court while considering the legality and correctness of any

order passed by the statutory authorities, shall confine itself

as to whether there is any arbitrariness or illegality in the

orders passed by the statutory authority. From the pleadings

and materials available on record I could not come across any

illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the official respondents

in conducting the proceedings to arrive at the conclusions.

Needless to say the writ petition has no sustenance and is

dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE LEK

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 21/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 03.07.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION ORDER DATED 26.11.2003, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4         A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
                   31.12.2010, OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
                   DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE
                   PETITIONER.