T OOMMEN PANICKER Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT EXECUTIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a contractor engaged in civil construction work. Petitioner owns tipper lorries for transport of goods for construction purposes. Petitioner is called upon to pay Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund contribution for the drivers engaged in the tipper lorries. Petitioner's case is that construction workers welfare fund contribution under the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1989 is recovered from petitioner's bills @ 1% for all the employees engaged by him. According to petitioner, the drivers engaged in the tipper lorries are also construction workers as they are engaged in supply of materials and, so much so, the deduction of contribution from work bills covers the benefit payable to drivers also. Even though petitioner has not furnished particulars, learned counsel for petitioner contended that all the drivers engaged by petitioner are registered as construction workers before the Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board. Ignoring the above claim of the petitioner, 1st respondent, in this case, has demanded welfare fund contribution payable under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 for all the drivers engaged in the tipper lorries vide Ext. P2. Petitioner's appeal against the final determination order is rejected by the Government vide Ext. P3 order, which is under challenge in this original petition.

(2.) I heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board and learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Petitioner has relied on Ext. P5, which is an order in appeal issued in the case of another party, wherein the drivers were stated to be covered under the Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act.