VALSAMMA P TOMS Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the owner of two motor vehicles namely,KL 3/G 2369 and KL 5/H 831. Proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent for recovery of contributions under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act in respect of the employees of both vehicles. Ext.P2 final determination order was passed in respect of the 1st vehicle. THE petitioner claims to have filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 1st respondent against that order. According to the petitioner, pending the said appeal, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P5 revenue recovery notice for recovery of the amount covered by Ext.P2 final determination order. THE petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings pending appeal. In respect of the 2nd vehicle, Ext.P8 provisional determination order was issued to the petitioner. THE petitioner submits that the petitioner had already transferred the vehicle to the 4th respondent and therefore, the petitioner is not liable for payment of contributions under the Act in respect of the 2nd vehicle. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1, 2 and 4. The 1st respondent has stated that Ext.P4 appeal has not been received by the 1st respondent. It is also submitted that the last date for filing the appeal was on 14.8.2003 and the petitioner herself has stated in the writ petition that the appeal is dated 26.8.2003. According to the 1st respondent, there is no provision in the Act to condone delay in filing an appeal also. The 2nd respondent would take the stand that the amounts are due from the petitioner, since there is no stay by any authority. He would contend that since Ext.P8 is only a provisional determination order, the petitioner can raise all his contentions and adduce evidence in support of the same during the enquiry before passing the final determination order.

(3.) IN view of the above findings, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.