Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THANKAMMA JACOB versus THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THANKAMMA JACOB v. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER - OP No. 13882 of 2003(C) [2006] RD-KL 2258 (30 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 13882 of 2003(C)

1. THANKAMMA JACOB, MANJKATHOTTIL HOUSE,RAN
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R) RANNI.

3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK

For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :30/11/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No.13882 OF 2003

Dated this the 30th day of November, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Challenge is on the recovery proceedings initiated in the mater of contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. The main grievance is stated in ground B which reads as follows: B. The finding in Ext.P3 that the assessment was made on the existing fair wages is absolutely incorrect and not based on any material. The petitioner's husband had maintained all the relevant records and the same would show that separate heads of account were being maintained for overtime allowances and commission data paid to the employees over and above the actual wages, which were in fact in excess of the fair wages. There is no counter affidavit either by the assessing authority or by the appellate authority. In case the petitioner has kept the accounts showing separate heads in the matter of wages and overtime allowance, Commission etc., the fixation can only be in terms of the accounts. There is no point in taking the whole amount paid to the workers. I quash the impugned orders. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh. A speaking order shall be passed adverting to the O.P.No.13882/2003 :2: contentions taken by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

ps O.P.No.13882/2003 :3:

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No. 13882/2003

JUDGMENT

30th November, 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.