Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 1019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
C.R. Sudhan, S/o. Raman – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary, Department Of Labour and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 8414 Of 2023
Decided On : 04-10-2024
For the Petitioner: Sri. V.M. Krishnakumar, Sri. P.S. Sidharthan.
For The Respondents:Sri. Asok M. Cherian, Addl. Advocate General, Smt. Sabeena P. Ismail, Government Pleader, Sri. Renil Anto Kandamkulathy, SC.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that acceptance of contributions creates an implied representation, preventing the Board from denying re-entry based on prior benefits received.
Headnote:
Welfare - Toddy Workers - Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act - Sections 3, 5 - The court interpreted the provisions allowing re-entry into the Welfare Fund, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment and the application of the doctrine of estoppel in the context of accepted contributions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Toddy Tapper, sought re-entry into the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund after being denied membership due to prior benefits received. He argued that the exclusion from re-entry violated his rights and was discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of re-entry was inequitable given the acceptance of contributions for years. It ruled that the petitioner should be treated as a member of the Welfare Fund for the period he contributed.
Issues: Whether the exclusion of Toddy Shop Workers from re-entry into the Welfare Fund violates constitutional rights and principles of equity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the doctrine of estoppel applies, as the Board accepted contributions for years without objection, leading the petitioner to reasonably assume he could re-enter the Fund.
Result: The court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as a member of the Welfare Fund from 2004 and grant him all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT :
(N. Nagaresh, J.) :
The petitioner, who worked as a Toddy Tapper, seeks to declare that Clause 33A of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme is ultravires of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act and the Rules and void ab initio in so far as it denies re-entry to the Welfare Fund, to the Toddy Shop Workers like the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks to command the respondents to grant membership to the Welfare Fund to the petitioner from 2004 onwards within such time as may be fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner states that he was working as Toddy Tapper in Toddy Shops in Irinjalakkuda Range in Thrissur District from 1984 onwards. The petitioner was enrolled in the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund as Toddy Tapper. Subscriptions to the Welfare Fund were paid upto 2004. In the year 2004, the petitioner met with an accident and was not able to do the work of toddy tapping, which involved climbing coconut trees. He therefore discontinued membership in the Welfare Fund and obtained benefits thereunder.
3. The petitioner states that he joined Toddy Shop No.177 in Irinjalakkuda Range as Toddy Shop Worker from 01.04.2004. From 01.04.2004 onwards, monthly contribution at the rate of 8% by the employee and 8% by the employer and another 10% by the employer, totalling 25% of monthly wages was remitted to the Welfare Fund.
4. However, the petitioner was not granted membership in the Welfare Fund on the ground that the 1st respondent-Board had taken a decision that employees retired from service and who obtained benefits from Welfare Fund cannot get readmission to the Fund. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.34224/2008. This Court dismissed the writ petition as per Ext.P5 judgment holding that it is a policy decision of the 1st respondent-Board and no new registration can be granted to a member who has already received the Welfare Fund benefits. Though the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.188/2015 against Ext.P5 judgment, the Writ Appeal was also dismissed.
5. Subsequently, the 1st respondent-Board issued Ext.P6 Circular dated 15.07.2019 whereby the Board decided to grant fresh membership to Toddy Tappers who had earlier went out of the Fund obtaining all the benefits. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation to the 1st respondent to readmit the petitioner to the Scheme with effect from 2004-2005 when he started his second term of employment as Toddy Shop Worker.
6. The petitioner states that as per amended Clause 33A of the Welfare Fund Scheme, the re-entry in Welfare Fund is permitted only to Toddy Tappers who had earlier exited the Scheme after getting benefits. Re-entry is denied to Toddy Shop Workers like the petitioner. The petitioner has been continuing as Toddy Shop Worker for the past more than 18 years and his Welfare Fund contributions were paid upto the year 2016.
7. The petitioner argued that the term 'employee' shall include any person who is employed for wages in connection with tapping, manufacture, transport, storage or sale of toddy. Providing re-entry only to Toddy Tappers is violative of Article 14.
8. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that in view of Section 3 of the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2015, the Government is to ensure that persons with disability enjoy right of equality with others. No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability. Ext.P8 is therefore liable to be quashed in so far as it restricts re-entry to the Toddy Tappers only.
9. The 1st respondent filed a statement. The 1st respondent justified the special treatment extended to Toddy Tappers. A Toddy Tapper is expected to tap approximately 10 coconut trees three times a day and hence should be in full health. Young generation is turning away from the toddy tapping work.
10. The Board of Directors of the Welfare Fund Board noticed that voluntarily retired Toddy Tappers who recover after treatment are rendered unemployed and suffer financial hardship. The Board therefore took
