Kerala High Court
K.I. Abdul Rahim vs The District Labour Officer on 6 August, 2019
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1941
WA.No.209 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 28267/2015 DATED 17-09-2015 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.I. ABDUL RAHIM
I-MALL SHOPPING COMPLEX GODOWN, ANCHALUMMOODU,
PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.
BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER
KOLLAM 691601
2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER
KOLLAM (ASSESSMENT OFFICER, BUILDING AND OTHER
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS ACT, KOLLAM).
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI K M HASHIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.08.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.A.No.209/2016
JUDGMENT
SHAFFIQUE, J This appeal is filed challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.09.2015, directing the appellant to prefer an appeal on deposit of 1% of the cess amount calculated at Rs.17,06,214/- The contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per Ext.P4 assessment notice dated 15.05.2015, the amount determined was Rs.1,76,21,369/- and the 1% of the cess amount was computed as Rs.17,06,214/- which is an arithmetical error. The petitioner filed objection as Ext.P5 inter alia challenging the construction cost and assessment of plinth area. However, without adhering to the aforesaid fact, Ext.P6 order dated 6.08.2015 came to be passed.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Government it is stated that the assessing officer had assessed Rs.17,62,13,696/- as total cost of construction of the building and cess amount comes to Rs.17,62,137/-. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit controverting the aforesaid stand as well. That apart, when PWD had valued the building, it was found that the cost of the building as per PWD valuation comes to Rs.60,95,736/- as evident from Annexure A1. The petitioner had also produced Annexure A2 which is an order dated 8.4.2016 stating that the cost of construction would come to Rs.17,62,13,696/- and the cess amount would come to Rs.17,62,137/-. The learned Single Judge had directed to pay Rs.17,06,214/- and to file an appeal within two weeks.
3W.A.No.209/2016
3. In the appeal the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the authority went wrong in making assessment of such a huge amount without any materials whatsoever.
4. In so far as the dispute raised by the appellant requires factual consideration, regarding the cost of construction and plinth area involved in it, we don't think that we will be justified in considering the same on merits, especially when the statutory remedy was not availed by filing an appeal. We don't find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge relegating the petitioner to file an appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time for filing an appeal without deposit of the amount. Being a statutory remedy, when statute indicates pre-deposit of an amount based on construction cost, we don't think that it will be proper on our part to direct waiver of pre-deposit. However, the time for filing appeal shall stand extended by three weeks from today.
The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
N.ANIL KUMAR
kp True copy JUDGE
P.A. To Judge.