The petitioner is aggrieved with the non registration under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme constituted under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 (herein after referred to as 'the Scheme' and 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts required for the disposal of the above writ petition are that, the petitioner was admittedly a toddy worker from 1985 onwards. He was registered under the Act and Scheme and he had been regularly paying contributions. In March, 2004, the petitioner submitted an application for retirement under paragraph 66 of the Scheme. The petitioner was granted the full amount due on retirement, as per the Scheme.
3. Subsequently, it is contended that in April, 2004 itself, the petitioner got himself employed in another toddy shop. The petitioner also made an application for registration on 17.01.2005 contending that, the employer had been deducting the contributions from his salary. The Welfare Fund Inspector having found the application to be incomplete, rejected it at the threshold. The procedure for registration under the Scheme contemplated the applications to be send to the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector who has to process the applications and grant registration. Only in the context of the application being incomplete and not having been accompanied by a fitness certificate, especially since the petitioner had retired on medical grounds, the Welfare Fund Inspector, at the threshold itself, rejected the application.
4. The petitioner was before this Court with a writ petition which was disposed of by Ext.P2. A re-consideration was directed in Ext.P2. Though an application was submitted in pursuance to Ext.P2, neither was the same complete nor was a fitness certificate produced. In such circumstances, the petitioner's application was rejected by Ext.P3. Reliance was placed on Circular No.436 dated 22.11.2005 which is produced herein by the respondent as Ext.R1 (a).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that going by paragraph 28 of the Scheme, any employee who has completed three months' continuous service would be entitled for registration, since the Scheme does not prohibit a retired employee from again getting registered. The contention is that, the petitioner would be entitled to be registered on having three months' continuous service. Looking at the Scheme, this Court cannot accept the above said contention.
6. Paragraph 33 of the Scheme, which deals with registration specifically by sub-paragraph 2 of clause (b), provides that a registered employee shall continue to be such, until the amount standing to his credit in the Welfare Fund, is paid off. Hence, this specifically prohibits a registered employee from continuing after the amount standing to his credit is paid off. Paragraph 66 also speaks of the application by a registered worker when he retires from service; which has to be made to the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector, for payment of the amounts, due to him. An application, as per paragraph 66 was admittedly submitted by the petitioner and the entire amounts due to him were paid. In such circumstances, there is no reason whey there should be continuance in the Scheme.
7. If the petitioner cannot be continued in the Scheme, necessarily, the registration cannot be taken out afresh since that would go against the spirit of the Scheme itself. None who voluntarily reitred under a Scheme and availed of the entire benefits, could claim further enrollment under the Scheme thus entitling him to be once again retired.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the statute does not prohibit a fresh registration, the Board cannot take a policy decision as indicated in Ext.R1 (a). In fact, it is to be noticed that, the Scheme as was stated earlier, does not contemplate a fresh registration. The mere fact that there is no provision restricting such registration, cannot be a reason for permitting registration in a Scheme, where retirement benefits are to be paid to a member registered under the Scheme. If a retired member is allowed to be again enrolled in the Scheme, that would adversely affect the operation of the fund; which definitely gives a benefit on retirement far in excess of the contribution made. No specific exclusion is required and the prohibition in continuance after once retired would be sufficient to interdict fresh enrollment.
9. Further Ext.R1(a) did not at all interfere with the provisions of the Scheme. Ext.R1(a) indicates that there was an earlier Circular having No.210 dated 04.12.1996 where the persons who had retired from the Scheme and who had not attained 60 years of age, were permitted to be again registered, on furnishing a fitness certificate from a competent Medical Officer. That Circular in fact, was against the provisions of the Scheme. It was that Circular which was cancelled by Ext.R1(a) and it cannot be said that Ext.R1(a) went against the provisions of the Scheme as such. In the present case, it is also an admitted fact that no fitness certificate has been produced by the employee.
10. For all the above reasons, petitioner is found to be not entitled to get a fresh registration under the Scheme, for reason of his having retired earlier and having availed of the amounts due to him under the Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the employer is regularly deducting contributions from the petitioner's salary. However, the learned counsel for the respondent Board asserts that, no such contribution has been received by the Board, since registration itself was declined. If the employee has any grievance against his employer that would have to be taken up before the appropriate forum.
The writ petition would stand dismissed reserving such liberty. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//