LALITHA SASI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in this batch cases were running toddy shops as licensees and were liable to pay toddy workers welfare fund contribution payable under the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969, hereinafter called the "Act". The challenge in the WPs. is against the validity of Section 9 of the Act, introduced by Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 1996 with effect from 26.3.1996, wherein the rate of interest for belated payment of toddy workers welfare fund is made at par with interest payable under the Abkari Act. The rate of interest payable until the amendment in 1996 was nine per cent per annum. The effect of the amendment is increase of interest for belated payment from nine per cent to 18 per cent per annum which is the rate provided under Rule 7(30) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002. I heard all counsel appearing for the petitioners, and various standing counsel appearing for the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board representing different districts.

(2.) The first contention raised by the petitioners is that the amendment to Section 9 vide Amendment Act, 1996 is of no consequence because the Abkari Act does not provide for any rate of interest. Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that Rule 7(30) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, hereinafter called the "Rules" prescribed under Section 29 of the Abkari Act (1 of 1077) is part of the Abkari Act and so much so, the same rate of interest, that is, 18% will apply to the Act with effect from the date of amendment, that is from 26.3.1996. In order to appreciate the contentions, statutory provisions have to be gone into and for easy reference the provisions are extracted hereunder. Section 9 of the Act introduced by Amendment Act of 1996 is as follows:

(3.) The next contention raised by the petitioners that referential legislation vide impugned amendment is not appropriate or legal as the purpose of the Abkari Act is different from the purpose of Welfare Fund Act. Petitioners have contended that the Abkari Act is made in exercise of the legislative power of the State under Entry 8 of State List in the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution, while the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act is a welfare legislation made under Entry 24 of the Concurrent List. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M/s. Attesee (Agro Industrial Trading Corporation), 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 733 held that in a case of referential legislation which merely contains a reference to, or citation of a provision of another statute, the provision of the first statute along with all its amendments and variations from time to time, should be read into the second statute. Therefore the rate of interest provided in Section 9 of the Act will keep on fluctuating with the interest rate provided under the Abkari Act read with Rule 7(30) of the Rules. I do not think there is any prohibition against the legislature from making a referential legislation in an Act with reference to a provision in another statute, the object of which is different from the statute in which referential legislation is incorporated. Therefore the objection raised by the petitioners against referential legislation is also not tenable and hence rejected.