MADYA VIDESAMADYA VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERUMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to the facts in 27944/2006 in the first instance. The first petitioner is the Madya-Videsamadya Vyavasaya Thozhilali Federation. It claims that about 689 Abkari workers are on daily wages, now working in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation after the foreign liquor trade was taken over by the Corporation as per orders of the Government. The Government issued G.O.(MS). No.24/2006/TD dated 1.3.2006. By the said order the Government took note of the fact that the Managing Director of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation had reported that there are 689 daily wage employees in the Corporation who are covered under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and the contribution of 12% of the wages which are otherwise paid to the employees has been incurred by the Corporation and that if the daily wage employees are covered under the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, they will be discontinued from the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The Managing Director further brought to the notice of the Government section 2(a) of the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Act, which provides that any person who is employed on daily wages in the liquor business is an Abkari worker and a worker who completes three months of continuous service is entitled to be registered as a member of Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. Taking note of these facts and with an intention to bring the said workers under the benevolent provisions of the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, the following directions were issued in Ext.P1:

(2.) Ext.P1 was challenged by certain persons before this court. At the same time the first petitioner in WPC.No. 2887/2007 had approached this court for implementation of Ext.P1 order as WPC.No.21026/2006. Apparently, the persons who challenged Ext.P1 order were apprehensive that the decision to bring 689 employees under the umbrella of the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Scheme was an attempt to regularise such persons in service. Other grounds were also taken to challenge the order.

(3.) A Division Bench of this court considered both the writ petitions and by judgment dated 31.8.2006 inter alia upheld Ext.P1 order. Considerable arguments are centered around the nature of the findings and directions of the Division Bench. Therefore, it is advantageous to extract that portion of the judgment of the Division Bench.