Ramachandran Nair, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge vacating Government Orders in appeal issued under Section 8(5) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and restoring final adjudication of Toddy Workers Welfare Fund contribution found payable jointly by the Appellant and licensees by the Welfare Fund Inspector in terms of Section 8 (1) of the Act.

2. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri.A.K.Jayasankar Nambiar appearing for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel Shri.Renil Anto appearing for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3. The facts leading to the controversy are the following:-

The appellant participated in auction and obtained toddy shop licence for running 42 toddy shops in Thrissur Range for a period of three years commencing from 01/04/1997 to 31/03/2000. However, on account of abkari offences committed, the appellant's licence was cancelled on 26/09/1997. Thereafter the licence was again issued to Shri.M.V.Sukumaran and Shri.P.C.Chandran. The appellant's specific case is that he was in jail and he was disabled from carrying on business in the toddy shops after cancellation of the licence. However, in the course of adjudication for determination of liability for the employer under Section 8(1) of the Act, Employees in the toddy shops and Trade Union Leaders gave evidence before the Adjudicating Officer that subsequent licensees were not the persons who actually carried on business but it was the appellant who in their names actually carried on business in the toddy shops, and even collected employees share of contribution which is 8% of the salary. Based on evidence collected in adjudication, the Welfare Fund Inspector issued Ext.P6 adjudication order determining liability jointly on the appellant and on the above named licensees. The adjudicating officer also found in enquiry that the actual licensees are in penuary and they had no means or capacity to carry on liquor business in 42 toddy shops. The appellant challenged the adjudication order issued in the joint names of himself and the actual licensees named above only for the purpose of getting himself exonerated from liability. Appellant's objective is only to fix liability on the licensees who were found to be only name lenders and from whom recovery is out of question. Appeal filed under Section 8(5) of the Act was decided in favour of the appellant by the Government vide Ext.P9 order, the operative portion of which is as follows:-

"On perusal of the connected records of the Welfare Fund Inspector, Thrissur it is seen that the employees have tendered evidence during the enquiries conducted on 29-09-03 and 19-2-04 that the toddy shops were actually conducted by the appellant even though the license was given to R2 and R3 during the period under challenge and they were paid and other benefit by the appellants himself. present for Trade enquiry have endorsed the above Union representative who were deposition of the employees. But the respondents 2 and 3 viz., M.V.Sukumaran and P.C.Chandran have deposed on 19-02-04 that they were the licensers of toddy shop Nos.55-96 of Thrissur range for the period from 1-11-97 to 31-03-02 and that they have already collected 8% of Welfare Fund from the wages of the employees. Neither the respondents (R2 and R3) nor the appellant filed objection against the Provisional Determination Orders issued in 9/04. Even though they were in receipt of the Provisional Determination Orders. Hence the final assessment orders were issued by the Welfare Fund Inspector confirming the provisional assessment, with Joint responsibility to remit the welfare fund contribution.

As the license of the appellant stands cancelled from 26-09-97, and that he is retained from the business of today the appellant is not liable to remit the Welfare Fund Contribution demanded by the Welfare