Radhakrishnan, J.

A learned single judge of this court in Kunhipokku v. District Executive Officer (1993 (2) KLT Sh. Notes (Case No.4)), while dealing with the power of condonation of delay in sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) felt that in case Government is not entertaining the appeal filed beyond the period prescribed therein the aggrieved party can invoke clause 83 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) which confers power on the Government to remove difficulties. The learned judge felt that power under clause 83 is akin to what is possessed by Section 19-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 which enables removal of difficulties arising under the said Act.

2. Petitioner felt that his petition filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Act could be entertained by the Government invoking clause 83 of the Scheme especially in the light of the decision in Kunhipokku’s case, supra. Government vide Ext.P15 letter dated 11.01.2006 however found no reason to entertain such a petition and dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed.

3. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, Justice Siri Jagan, the learned judge did not agree with the interpretation given in Kunhipokku’s case and referred the matter to the Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

4. A Division Bench of this court in District Executive Officer v. Abel (2006 (2) KLT 758) to which one of us, K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Is a party, took the view that Government have no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond sixty days from the date of receipt of the final determination order. The Bench held as follows:

“Legislature in its wisdom thought that Government be conferred with no power for condonation of delay with the object of not delaying payment of amount due to the employee on its determination by Chief Executive Officer, Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act is a welfare legislation. Canon of constructing welfare legislation is distinct from the canon of constructing ordinary law. Court cannot countenance any practice to circumvent or defeat the provisions of the welfare legislation. Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and the scheme framed thereunder are intended to achieve some urgent social demands, that is welfare of motor transport workers State has got obligation to work out that welfare of the motor transport workers. It is with that objective the scheme has been framed. Legislature felt that if any person is aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer he could prefer an appeal within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. Legislature has not conferred power on the Government to entertain any appeal filed beyond the statutory period fixed.”

The Bench also felt that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be exercised in favour of the party who had not availed of the alternate remedy available under the statute. Petitioner however felt that though his application cannot be entertained by the appellate authority since it was filed beyond the statutory period, the same could be entertained by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause 83 of the Scheme.

5. We will therefore examine whether clause 83 of the Scheme would come to the rescue of a party who had not availed of the statutory remedy of appeal. The Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 is an act enacted to provide for the constitution of a Fund to promote the welfare of the motor transport workers in the State of Kerala. Section 3 of the Act enables the Government to frame a Scheme called the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fu