V SIVARAMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Original Petition have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the Kerala Handloom Worker's Welfare Fund Act. Though a learned single Judge had on 11.7.1994, in one O.P., viz. 5296/90 repelled the challenge posed, the judgment was set aside in W.A. No. 1581 of 1994 and the entire matter again came up for consideration. On behalf of the petitioners, submissions were made by M/s. C. Chandrasekharan, R. Ramadas, K. Raghu, Shenoy and Ramesh Chander. I had heard the learned Government Pleader, as also Mr. V.M. Kurian and P.N.P. Kaimal for the respondents. Mr. Pathrose Mathai appeared for petitioners in three of the cases. In the course of the proceedings, a preliminary issue had been raised by the respondents that by Ordinance No. 19/2001, the Act had been substantially amended, effective from 29.12.2001. The new sections had not been subjected to separate challenge, and the Original Petitions were therefore to be dismissed. The above Original Petition have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the Kerala Handloom Worker's Welfare Fund Act. Though a learned single Judge had on 11.7.1994, in one O.P., viz. 5296/90 repelled the challenge posed, the judgment was set aside in W.A. No. 1581 of 1994 and the entire matter again came up for consideration. On behalf of the petitioners, submissions were made by M/s. C. Chandrasekharan, R. Ramadas, K. Raghu, Shenoy and Ramesh Chander. I had heard the learned Government Pleader, as also Mr. V.M. Kurian and P.N.P. Kaimal for the respondents. Mr. Pathrose Mathai appeared for petitioners in three of the cases. In the course of the proceedings, a preliminary issue had been raised by the respondents that by Ordinance No. 19/2001, the Act had been substantially amended, effective from 29.12.2001. The new sections had not been subjected to separate challenge, and the Original Petitions were therefore to be dismissed.

(2.) However, petitioners point out that the basic contentions are even now available, as there were changes brought about in the rate of contributions, and a slab system was introduced so far as the liability of dealers were concerned. But the grounds as urged in the Original Petitions have full relevance, and are not eclipsed because of the amendment. The issues are thus being enquired into in the aforesaid background.

(3.) The Kerala Handloom Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1989 (Act 2 of 1989) was published in Kerala Gazette dated 26.4.1989 and as seen from the objective and preamble, the Act is intended to constitute a fund to promote the welfare of handloom workers and for connected purposes. Under Section 3 of the Act, the government was given power to frame a scheme, for establishing a fund, and it was to be intended to be utilized for the following purposes, as envisaged under sec. 3(4) :