The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of 'employer' under welfare legislation should be given a wider meaning, and the legislation should be liberally construed to achieve its purpose.

K..S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Question involved in this case is as to whether petitioner, who is not a licensee of certain Toddy Shops, would come within the definition of 'employer'under Section 2(c) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, hereinafter called the 'Act'.

2. Petitioner was served with notice under Section 8 of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1989 to determine the contribution due to the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund, constituted under the Act. It was stated petitioner, along with 7th respondent, was conducting Toddy Shop Nos.1 to 26 of Paravoor excise range for the year 1987-88. Pursuant to the notice petitioner appeared and contended that he had no occasion to run the shops for the said period, and therefore he was not an employer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. However, petitioner was served with Ext. P1 pre-assessment notice dated 31-5-1994 determining the contribution payable by the petitioner and 7th respondent at Rs. 10,05,907/-. Petitioner filed objections before the 5th respondent. He reiterated his stand that he was never an employer, and therefore he was not liable to pay contribution. However, his objections were rejected and an order was passed by the Welfare Fund Inspector stating eventhough petitioner was not a licensee; he was conducting the shops during the relevant period along with 7th respondent, T. Soman. It was pointed out T. Soman was only a name-lender and in fact petitioner was conducting the shops. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred appeal before the Government under Section 8(5) of the Act and the Government dismissed the appeal vide Ext. P6 order dated 30-12-1995. Aggrieved by Ext. P6, petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Main contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that since seventh respondent is admittedly the licensee, petitioner cannot be multed with liability. According to counsel, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that petitioner was the licensee of the shops for the said period. In the absence of any evidence, respondents 1 to 6 ought to have treated the petitioner as the employer for payment of contribution.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent. Fifth respondent's stand is that petitioner himself was conducting the shops and that 7th respondent was only a name-lender. It is their stand that licensee and petitioner are equally liable to pay contribution, and therefore respondents 1 to 6 can proceed against the petitioner. It is stated since petitioner defaulted payment, recovery proceedings were initiated against him as per Section 8 of the Act.

5. I heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel appearing for respondents. The term 'employer' is defined under Section 2(c) of the Act as follows :

"'employer' means any person who employs whether directly or through another person or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees and includes any person who has a licence for the manufacturing, distribution, storage or sale of toddy under the ahkari Act for the time being in force." (emphasis supplied)

It is evident from the above mentioned statutory provision that a person need not be the 'licensee' to satisfy the definition of employer under Section 2(c) of the Act. Legislature used the expression 'means and includes'. Where the legislature used the expression 'means and includes' in the definition clause, such a definition has to be given wider meaning, as held by the Supreme Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. M/s. Sankar Industries Ltd., 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 361 (II). Act is enacted to provide for the constitution of fund to promote the welfare of toddy workers in the State of Kerala. Since the Act is a welfare legislation provisions of the said Act are to be liberally co Stateded As held by the Supreme Court in MA. International Ore and Fertilisers Ltd., v. E.S.I. Corporation, 1987 (4) S.C.C. 203, while construing welfare legislation, a liber