CHAMBER OF COMMERCE VYAPARA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Association of Traders formed with the object of protecting the interests of the industrial and trading community, within the Kunnamkulam Municipal limits. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the authority of the second respondent Board in demanding charges for the supply of labour card and receipts which are to be maintained by the employers under Rule 27 of the Headload Workers Rules. According to the petitioner, the labour card and receipts were all along being printed and supplied by the respondent Board free of cost. The contention of the petitioner is that the amounts collected by the Board in addition to the contribution paid by the employers, which is 27% of the wages paid to the employees is intended to meet the expenses of the Board which includes the expenses for printing and supplying the receipts, labour card etc. also. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Board has no authority whatsoever to collect separately, the charges for supplying the labour cards, receipts etc. to the employers. As per Ext.P1 circular issued by the second respondent, from 1.1.2010 onwards, the employer has to pay Rs. 23/- for the work card book and Rs. 5/- for the receipt book which are issued by the second respondent to the employers. According to the petitioner, the circular is illegal, unjustified and absolutely without justification. Since the demand made in Ext.P1 is over and above the statutory levy paid by the employer, the petitioner contends that the amount is not liable to be paid. The demand for such amount is not authorised by the scheme also.

(2.) According to Mr. Koshy George, the counsel for the second respondent Board, the amount that is demanded as per Ext.P1 circular is only the expenses for getting the labour card and receipts printed. Since the labour card and receipts are to be maintained by the employers, the expenses for printing the said records are to be met by the employers. According to the counsel, there is no provision to supply the said records free of cost, to the employers and charges are being levied by all the District Committees for getting the said records printed. There has been no challenge against the levy of such charges from any quarter till date. Since only the expenses for supplying the labour cards and receipts have been charged, it is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with Ext.P2 and that the same is perfectly valid. It is further pointed out that as per Rule 27 of the Headload Workers Rules, it is for the employer to maintain the said records. There is no compulsion that they should be obtained from the second respondent Board. If the employers were not willing to pay the charges for printing the said records, they could get them printed at their own cost. It is therefore pointed out that the Writ Petition is absolutely without merits and liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Sri. George Poonthottam who appears for the petitioner and Mr. Koshy George who appears for the second respondent Board. The first respondent is represented by the learned Government Pleader.