Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4330
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR – Appellant
Versus
C.K. SASIDHARAN – Respondent
WA 2063/2024
G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P), SRI M G KARTHIKEYAN SR GP, SRI T K VIPINDAS
Only the licensee is liable for contributions under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, as the petitioner did not meet the definition of an employer.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 - Sections 2(c) and 2(d) - Liability of employers for contributions to the welfare fund - The Single Bench's ruling that the petitioner was responsible for contributions was overturned, establishing that only the licensee is liable as the employer. (Paras 1, 6, 7)
(B) Judicial Precedent - The court emphasized that previous judgments must be considered, and failure to do so renders them non-binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. (Paras 2, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the Single Bench's decision that held the petitioner responsible for contributions under the Act, despite the actual employers being wilful defaulters. The petitioner was a manager, not the employer.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner could not be held liable as an employer without evidence of direct employment, affirming that only the licensee was responsible for contributions.
Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of employer liability under the Act and the binding nature of previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner did not meet the definition of an employer under the Act, and previous judgments not considered by the Single Bench were not binding.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of the Single Bench set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to liability for contributions (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments by appellant and respondent (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. interpretation of employer and employee definitions (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's conclusion on employer liability (Para 7) |
| 5. appeal allowed and judgment set aside (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
1. Appellant – Welfare Fund Inspector has challenged the judgment of the Single Bench allowing the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent/petitioner who has unnecessarily been held responsible for not depositing the contribution of the employees working under the Kerala Toddy Workers’ Welfare Fund Act. Concededly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were the successful bidders for running the Toddy shop Nos. 119 to 122 of Kuttanadu excise range. As per the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act , 1969 (hereinafter called ‘Act of 1969’) the employer is required to pay welfare funds for toddy shops in respect of the employees working therein. Concededly, the petitioner, Sri.C.K.Sasidharan, a senior citizen was working as manager of respondent Nos.2 and 3 ie., Binesh and Bijesh. Both respondent Nos.2 and 3 were wilful defaulters in not making the contribution resulted into determination order under Section 8 of the ‘Act of 1969’ against all the three. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not assail the aforementioned order, but was assailed by the 1st respondent/petitioner resulted into an order dated 31.03.2005 whereby the matter was remanded to the Welfare Fund Inspector for redetermination. On remand, vide order dated 11.12.2007, liability was fastened on Toddy shop No.119 against all the three. Thereafter also appeal was filed only by the 1st respondent/petitioner and not by the licensees. The ground of challenge before the single Bench was by taking the aid of provisions of Section 2 (c) of the Act as well as the judgment of Supreme Court in Joseph Joseph v. State of Kerala [2002 KHC 171] . Learned Single Judge by rejecting the argument put forward by the appellant that the liability is coextensive, i.e., jointly and severally, allowed the writ petition.
2. Sri.Santhosh Kumar.G, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that two Division Benches of this Court, in the judgments inSasi V. v. State of Kerala [2016 KHC 694] and Ashokan V.K. v. Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and another [2012 (3) KLT 723] , rendered the findings in favour of the revenue, fastening the liability towards the non-contribution of the employers on the immediate employer and by holding it to be joint and several and therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 – the writ petitioner submitted that the aforementioned two judgments have not been taken into consideration in the judgment of the Supreme Court and therefore, cannot be held to be binding on this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
5. Sections 2 (c) and 2(d) of the Act reads as under:
2(c) “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 manufacture, distribution, storage or sale of toddy under the Abkari Act for the time being in force.”
2(d) "employee" means any person who is employed for wages in connection with the tapping, manufacture, transport, storage or sale of toddy and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer and includes any person employed by or through a contractor or through an agent in or in connection with the tapping, manufacture, transport, storage or sale of toddy;”
6. ‘Employer’ would mean any person who employs whether directly or through any other person or whether on behalf of himself or any other person one or more employees including any person who has a license for manufacturing, distribution, storage and sale of
