P. Abdurahiman vs The District Executive Officer, Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board Malappuram and The Secretary, Labour Rehabilitation(S) Department Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner is the owner of a motor transport undertaking. He was assessed to contributions under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and Scheme by Ext.P3 order. On the ground that two of the employees were not permanent employees, but only temporary employees who were engaged only when the permanent employees were on leave, petitioners challenged the demand for contribution in respect of them before the Government by filing an appeal u/s 8(5) of Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. By Ext.P4 order that appeal was rejected. It is under the above circumstances, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs.

a) writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and P4 and quash the same.

b) issue such other orders as this Court deems fit to grant in the nature and facts of the case.

The contention of the petitioner is that the finding in Ext.P4 order that the assessment was based on the deposition of the employer and worker is not correct, since going by Ext.P5 and P5(a) depositions of the petitioner and one of the workers respectively, they had not admitted that those employees are liable to be covered under the Act. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders are perverse and therefore liable to be set aside holding that those two employees are not eligible to be enrolled under the scheme for the purpose of the payment of contributions under the Act.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would seek to controvert the contentions of the petitioner.

The Government would also seek to controvert the contentions based on the counter affidavit submitted by the 2nd respondent.

I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Going by the scheme, there is no permanent or temporary employee for the purpose of payment of contributions. The requirement is that the employee should have worked for three months continuously. Whether the employees involved in this writ petition had continuously worked for three months or not is a question of fact. Admittedly, the employees had, in fact, worked in the petitioner''s motor transport undertaking. As a motor transport undertaking, the petitioner is bound to maintain statutory registers such as register of workers and muster roll, which would conclusively prove the contentions of the petitioner if true. The petitioner has no case that these records were produced in support of his contention. In the depositions produced also, the contention is that they were only temporary employees and worked for 10 to 12 days. That itself is vague. The petitioner should know exactly for how many days his employees had worked and were paid wages. It cannot be a vague statement like in Exts.P5 and P5(a).

In view of the above, I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner for challenging Ext.P3 and P4 orders.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.