PARAMESWARAN Vs. CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question has arisen to be decided in this group of Original Petitions. Justifiability of demand of penal interest levied under Para.38(1) of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme is challenged. Sri. C.C. Thomas counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P. No. 6879 of 1999 had led the arguments. I had opportunity hear M/s. L. G. Potti, Raghu Kottappuram, Ramachandran Nambiar and Ravikumar and who had dealt with various aspects of the claims. Mr. K.K. Babu, Standing Counsel had represented the Board, and Sri. Murali Purushothaman, Government Pleader, appeared for the Government, which is made respondent in some of the Original Petitions. O.P. No. 6879 of 1999 is of a representative nature of the batch of cases and I may advert to the facts and exhibits made available therein.

(2.) The petitioner was a contractor of toddy shops for the year 1994-95, the duration of the licence period being from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995. The Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act and the Scheme framed thereunder necessitates a contractor to pay contributions towards the statutory welfare fund. Under S.8 of the Act, the contribution which shall be paid by the employer to the Fund is 8% of the wages for the time being payable. In addition, employees contribution at an equal rate is to be deducted and paid over to the Fund. Additionally, 5% of the wages also is payable towards gratuity.

(3.) Authorised officers are empowered to determine the amount from the employer under the provisions of the Act and Scheme and such officers have been conferred with powers of enquiry, including inspection and discovery.