P. R. Raman, J.

1. W.A. 2339/2004 arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 12344 of 2002 and W.A. 2345/2004 arises out of the judgment in O.P. No. 23834 of 2002. Both the Original Petitions raised common question of law and facts and the learned Single disposed of the Writ Petitions by a common judgment dated 12th August, 2004. Hence these Appeals also are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellant in both these Appeals is the Welfare Fund Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board, Ernakulam. In O.P. 23834/2002 petitioner is one T. C. Jose and the 4th respondent is one K. D. Suresh, Thrissur. The petitioner contended that he along with four other persons were the licensees of Toddy Shop Nos. 96-99, 119-122 and 147 of Mamala Range in Ernakulam District for the year 2000-01, that they later transferred the right thereunder to the 4th respondent on the basis of an agreement, that being the immediate employer of the employees working in the said shops, the 4th respondent himself was deducting and recovering the employees' share of the contribution payable in respect of the employees working in those shops for remitting the same to the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board along with the employers' share of contributions thereunder, that the 4th respondent committed default in payment of employer's contribution to the Welfare Fund and that it was thereupon that steps were initiated under S.8 of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act for determination of the amount due under the Act, against the petitioner and other licensees and the 4th respondent. It was his further contention that the employees working in the aforesaid Toddy shops had given evidence to the effect that the 4th respondent was conducting the shop and paying wages and recovering their share of contribution to the Welfare Fund. So however, the Welfare Fund Inspector who is the first respondent in the Writ Petition, passed Ext. P1 order of determination dated 25/03/2002, imposing the liability to pay contribution under the Act in respect of the shops in question jointly on the licensees as well as the 4th respondent. During the pendency of S.8 enquiry two among the licensees filed O.P. 12344 of 2002 challenging the initiation of the proceeding against them. Consequent to Ext. P1 produced in the case, Revenue Recovery proceedings were resorted to and two separate demands were raised under S.7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Exts. P3 and P4 are the said notices so issued. Though objections were raised, the same were overruled. Contending that Ext. P1 is arbitrary and illegal, the Original Petition was filed seeking to quash the same.

3. In O.P. 12344/2002, the contention of the petitioners were that they and three others bid in auction Toddy Shop Nos. 96 to 99,119 to 122 and 147 of Mamala Range, for the year 2000-01; but they could not conduct the shops and therefore, they were conducted by the 4th respondent therein for the period from 01/04/2000 to 31/03/2001. Proceedings, however, were initiated under the Act for recovery of the amount due as per Ext. P1 dated 18/12/2001, as per which an amount of Rs. 1,11,358/- was still payable. But according to the petitioners, instead of taking proceedings against the 4th respondent, the authorities have initiated steps to recover the amount from them. True copy of the notice dated 02/02/2002 issued by the second respondent Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, was produced as Ext. P2.

4. The main contention of the petitioners was that in so far as the 4th respondent was found, based on enquiry, as the real employer of the employees employed in the shops and accepted by the Department, there was no liability cast on the licensees as they had already, based on an internal arrangement, enabled the 4th respondent to conduct the shops, who alone had recovered the employees' share of contribution, and having conducted the shops, he alone was liable to pay the balance contribution, if an