ASOKAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UESTION involved in this case is as to whether petitioner, who is not a licensee of certain Toddy Shops, would come within the definition of 'employer' under Section 2 (c) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, hereinafter called the 'act'.

(2.) PETITIONER was served with notice under Section 8 of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1989 to determine the contribution due to the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund, constituted under the Act. It was stated petitioner, along with 7th respondent, was conducting Toddy Shop Nos. 1 to 26 of Paravoor excise range for the year 1987-88. Pursuant to the notice petitioner appeared and contended that he had no occasion to run the shops for the said period, and therefore he was not an employer within the meaning of Section2 (c) of the Act. However, petitioner was served with Ext. P 1 preassessment notice dated May 31, 1994 determining the contribution payable by the petitioner and 7th respondent at Rs. 10,05,907/ -. Petitioner filed objections before the 5th respondent. He reiterated his stand that he was never an employer, and therefore he was not liable to pay contribution. However, his objections were rejected and an order was passed by the Welfare Fund Inspector stating evcnthough petitioner was not a licensee, he was conducting the shops during the relevant period along with 7th respondent, T. Soman. It was pointed out that T. Soman was only a name-lender and in fact petitioner was conducting the shops. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred appeal before the Government under Section 8 (5) of the Act and the Government dismissed the appeal vide Ext. P6 order dated December 30, 1995. Aggrieved by Ext. P6, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) MAIN contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that since seventh respondent is admittedly the licensee, petitioner cannot be mulcted with liability. According to counsel, there is no. evidence whatsoever to show that petitioner was the licensee of the shops for the said period. In the absence of any evidence, respondents 1 to 6 ought to have treated the etitioner as the employer for payment of contribution.