Petitioner is a contractor engaged in civil construction work. Petitioner owns tipper lorries for transport of goods for construction purposes. Petitioner is called upon to pay Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund contribution for the drivers engaged in the tipper lorries. Petitioner’s case is that construction workers welfare fund contribution under the Kerala Construction Workers welfare fund Act 1989 is recovered from petitioner’s bills @1% for all the employees engaged by him. According to petitioner, the drivers engaged in the tipper lorries are also construction workers as they are engaged in supply of materials and, so much so, the deduction of contribution from work bills covers the benefit payable to drivers also. Even though petitioner has not furnished particulars, learned counsel for petitioner contended that all the drivers engaged by petitioner are registered as construction workers before the Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board. Ignoring the above claim of the petitioner, 1st respondent, in this case, has demanded welfare fund contribution payable under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act 1985 for all the drivers engaged in the tipper lorries vide Ext.P2. Petitioner’s appeal against the final determination order is rejected by the Government vide Ext.P3 order, which is under challenge in this original petition.

2. I heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board and learned Government Pleader.

3. Petitioner has relied on Ext.P5, which is an order in appeal issued in the case of another party, wherein the drivers were stated to be covered under the Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act.

4. Question to be considered is whether the drivers engaged in the tipper lorries, owned by petitioner, for the transport of materials for construction work, answer the description of “construction worker” as defined under Section 2(d) of the construction Workers Welfare Fund Act or whether the drivers engaged in the tipper lorries, answer the description of employees, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. For easy reference the relevant definition clauses in both the Acts are extracted hereunder.

Section 2(d) of Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act.

“Construction Worker” means any person who is employed for wages to do any work in connection with a construction work and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from an employer or from a contractor and includes a person engaged in any work connected with the supply of materials for construction works and a worker specified in any categories in Schedule I.

Explanation: If any doubt arises as to whether a person is or is not a construction worker for the purpose of this Act, the question shall be referred to the Chief Executive Officer or an officer authorized by the Government in behalf whose decision thereon shall be final.

Section 2(d) of Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act.

“Employee” means a person who is employed for wages in a motor transport undertaking directly or through an agency to work in a professional capacity on a transport vehicle or to attend to duties in connection with the arrival, departure, loading or unloading of such transport vehicle and includes a driver, conductor, cleaner, station staff, line checking staff, booking clerk, cash clerk, depot clerk, time keeper, watchman or attendant.

From the above, it is clear that driver is specifically covered as a motor worker for the purpose of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. Therefore, the only question required to be considered is whether the driver of tripper lorry falls also within the description of “construction worker” as defined in Section 2(d) of the Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act, and if so, whether petitioner can limit liability under one statute and if so which is the more appropriates statute that applies. Admittedly, drivers are not spec