Back
1988 Supreme(Ker) 378
Judges : MALIMATH,BHASKARAN NAMBIAR
OUSEPH ALY - Appellant
Versus
WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 770 of 1986, O.P. No. 6582 of 1986
Decided On : 10/06/1988
Advocates Appeared :
O.V. Radhakrishnan; For Appellant K.K. Babu; Seemandini; For Respondents
Departmental management agents, upon appointment, are considered employers under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969, and are liable to make contributions.
Headnote:
Departmental Management Agents - Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act - The court held that departmental management agents, who become licensees upon appointment, are considered employers under the Act and are liable to make contributions. The definition of 'employer' under the Act is broad enough to include such agents.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, as departmental management agents, contended that they cannot be regarded as employers under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969, and are not liable to make contributions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants, as departmental management agents who become licensees upon appointment, are considered employers under the Act, and thus the liability was rightly cast on them. The contention regarding the number of workers was considered a finding of fact not liable for interference in these proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether departmental management agents are considered employers under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969, and are liable to make contributions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'employer' under the Act and concluded that it is broad enough to include departmental management agents who become licensees upon appointment.
Final Decision: The appeal failed, and the court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants, as departmental management agents, are considered employers under the Act and are liable to make contributions.
1. The only contention of the appellants is that they being departmental management agents under the Abkari Shops Departmental Management Agent R.1972, cannot be regarded as employers as defined in S.2(c) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 to attract the liability to make contribution under S.4 of the said Act. A departmental management agent is ordinarily required to be nominated or appointed when the shop for sale of toddy cannot be run either on account of the contractor committing default or on account of the fact that nobody is available for running the shop. R.10 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Departmental Management Agent R.1972 requires that no departmental agent shall be entrusted with the management of a shop before fixing the departmental management fee and its collection in advance. The advance shall be for not less than seven days for not more that 15 days at a time. Sub-rule (2) to R.10 requires the Excise Inspector to issue to the Departmental Management agent a temporary licence to conduct the shop for the period for which the departmental management agent has been paid. Thus it becomes clear that the departmental management agent becomes a licensee for the sale of toddy, to acquire which that he has to pay the departmental management fee in advance. He is free to conduct the shop by employing such number of workers as are necessary for that purpose. The definition of the expression 'employer' under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 is wide enough to include persons like the appellants who become licensees on their being appointed as departmental management agents. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the appellants being employers under the Act, the liability was rightly cast on them. So far as the contention regarding the number of workers is concerned that is finding of fact which is not liable for interference in these proceedings. Hence this appeal fails and is dismissed.
