The petitioner approaches this Court aggrieved by revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of contributions payable under Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 (the Act for short) in respect of employees of shop Nos.5 and 6 of Thalasserry Range on the ground that since he was not the licensee of the said shops, he has no liability to pay contributions under the Act.

2. Admittedly, additional respondents 3 to 5 were the licensees. Although, the petitioner would not admit the same fully, it is pretty much in evidence that the petitioner was associated with the running of the shops, though not as licensee.

3. The 2nd respondent initiated proceedings for determining the contributions payable in respect of the employees of the shop as per Ext.P-1 pre-assessment notice against the petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 5. The same ended in Ext.P-4 order by which the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay contributions demanded therein. Petitioner’s appeal before the Government was dismissed by Ext.P-7 order, in which while dismissing the appeal, the Government held that the petitioner was running the shop and the employees were directly employed by him. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P-7 order in this writ petition.

4. The petitioner heavily relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Joseph Joseph v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) K.L.T. 827 (S.C.), in support of his contention that merely because a person is associated with the conduct of a toddy shop, it cannot be said that he had employed workers on his own behalf.

5. Ironically, the 3rd respondent also relies on the very same decision (supra) to contend that since the petitioner was running the toddy shops, employing workers therein by himself, he alone is liable to pay contributions and not respondents to 5. In support, he has filed Ext.R-3 (a) agreement between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 as per which the petitioner had taken over the entire liability in respect of the toddy shops in question. He has also produced Ext.R-3(c) affidavit of one Sri T.M. Surendran, General Secretary of the Thalasserry Range Toddy Contractors’ Association, who vouches for the fact that he was a witness to Ext.R-3(a) agreement and that pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner was running the shops in question. He further relies on Ext.R-3 (b) Judgment of this Court rendered in identical circumstances wherein a Single Bench of this Court has held that once it is proved that a particular person was running the shop employing toddy workers, there is no scope for the Welfare Fund Inspector to look for the licensee as the other person answers the description of employer.

6. The petitioner, in his reply affidavit denies having executed Ext.R-3(a) and submits that since the said document was never produced before the welfare fund authorities, the same cannot be relied upon.

7. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

8. Before going into the question of liability to pay welfare fund contributions as between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 3 to 5 on the other, I think it necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Abkari Act and Rules under which licence to run toddy shops is issued. Under Section 15 of the Abkari Act, sale of liquor without a licence is prohibited. Section 15 reads thus:

“15. Sale of liquor or intoxicating drug without licence prohibited. Power to exempt toddy.- No liquor or intoxicating drug shall be sold without a licence from the Commissioner provided that a person having the right to the toddy drawn from tree may sell the same without a licence to person licensed to manufacture or sell under this Act:

Provided also that the Government may, by notification, declare that any or all of the provisions of this Act, shall not apply in any local area to trees tapped, or to toddy drawn under such conditions as t