R VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners hold licences for conducting bar hotels in Malappuram district, According to the petitioners, the establishments or the petitioners are covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the scheme made thereunder. They contend that, in view or the fact that the establishments are covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, they are not liable to pay contributions under the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1989. The petitioners would contend that this position is covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in W.A No.963 of 1997, which is produced as Ext.P6 in this writ petition. Despite the above legal position, respondents 2 & 3 have directed the petitioners to remit contributions in respect or the employees of the petitioners under the Kerala Abkari workers Welfare fund Act, 1989. The impugned assessment orders have been Issued in respect thereof. According to the petitioners, the demand for contributions under the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Act is clearly against Ext.P6 decision of this court. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Although the "petitioners have sought a, prayer for declaring the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Act as unconstitutional and void, the only prayer pressed before me at the time of assignments is on the question of sustainability of the impugned orders in view of Ext.P6 judgment.

(3.) Counter Affidavits have been filed by the 2nd respondent. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3 submits that subsequent to Ext.P6 judgment, the Division Bench has considered the matter in O.P No. 15541/1999, wherein the government was directed to take a final decision with regard to the question as to whether there is overlapping of the provisions of the two enactments and as to whether the employees would get double benefits because of the application of the provisions of the Central as well as the State Acts. Therefore according to the counsel for the respondents 2 & 3, it is open to respondents 2 & 3 to make sure that all employees in respect of whom the contributions are demanded, are in fact covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. But at the same time, it is not disputed before me that the government has subsequently considered the matter and held that if both enactments are implemented there would be overlapping of benefits and there would be double benefits, As such without a finding that any of the employees of the petitioners are actually not covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the respondent cannot demand contributions under the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Act.