High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; impugned proceedings set...

Joseph John v. Kerala Water Authority & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 719 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-01-08
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition allowed; impugned proceedings set aside; directed the KWA to hear the petitioner and assess his claim that he is not liable to pay Cess under KCWWF Act, after due hearing and consideration of documentary materials, with orders to be issued expeditiously. Recovery of any assessed Cess is stayed pending such determination, and amounts already collected will be refunded if liability is not established.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; impugned proceedings set aside; stay on recovery; hearing and assessment directed to determine liability under KCWWF Act; refunds if not liable; orders to be issued expeditiously.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Joseph John

Respondents

  • Kerala Water Authority
  • The Superintendent Engineer, Office of the Superintendent Engineer, PH-CIRCLE, Kerala Water Authority, Muvattupuzha
  • The Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Project Division, Kerala Water Authority, Kattapana, Idukki
  • Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. Shanes Methar
  • • N. Krishna Prasad

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P. M. Johny

Case Synopsis & Summary

Joseph John, a works contractor engaged by the Kerala Water Authority (KWA), challenges deductions under the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act (KCWWF). He contends that his contract with KWA is limited to supplying materials for pipeline works and does not entail active construction, so a 1% deduction labeled as Cess is unwarranted and beyond the scope of his obligations. He relies on Kerala High Court decisions Poulose and others v. State of Kerala and Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board v. State of Kerala to argue that KCWWF liability does not extend to him if he has no construction involvement. The KWA argues the opposite: as a contractor under KWA, he is bound by KCWWF and that even material supply can be treated as part of construction; liability attaches once statutory criteria are satisfied, with proper assessment to follow. The court recognizes a factual dispute about the nature of the contracts and emphasizes that the KCWWF regime has a defined ambit that requires assessment before liability is imposed. It cautions against unilateral deterring actions without hearing or documentary scrutiny. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, impugned proceedings are set aside, and the KWA is directed to hear the petitioner and assess his claim after due opportunity and evidence. Recovery is stayed pending determination, with refunds due if liability is ultimately rejected.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act (KCWWF)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Audi alteram partem (principle of hearing before adverse action)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Joseph John contends that his contract with KWA is limited to supplying materials for pipeline works and does not involve participation in construction. Consequently, imposition of 1% Cess under KCWWF is unwarranted. He relies on Poulose and others v. State of Kerala (1993) and Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board v. State of Kerala (1995) to show that KCWWF liability cannot extend to him where he does not engage in construction. He seeks a declaration that he is not liable to pay Cess and an order directing KWA to determine liability after due hearing and documentary consideration. He argues that, given the factual dispute, it is improper to impose Cess unilaterally without hearing. Pending determination, recovery should be deferred and amounts already collected should be refunded if liability is not established.

Contentions of Respondents

The KWA, through its counsel, argues that as a contractor, the petitioner is bound by KCWWF and that even material supply can be part of construction; liability to Cess can attach once statutory criteria are satisfied and after proper assessment by the competent authority. It is contended that the petitioner's role in construction cannot be excluded merely because he claims to supply materials, and the KCWWF Scheme has a defined ambit requiring evaluation of evidence before liability is imposed. While conceding a factual dispute, the respondents maintain that the petitioner's contentions require fair inquiry and hearing. The final decision should be grounded on verification of whether KCWWF Act's requirements are fulfilled in this case, with due opportunity given to the petitioner.”},

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Poulose and others v. State of Kerala and others1993(3) ILR Kerala 675PositivePetitioner cited these judgments in support of his position that KCWWF liability does not automatically attach to him given his contractual role.
Kerala Construction Workers Welfare Fund Board v. State of Kerala1995(2) KLT 724PositiveCourt acknowledged precedents aligning with the petitioner's interpretation of KCWWF ambit.
W.P. (C) No. 39649 of 2023W.P. (C) No. 39649 of 2023Mentioned OnlyExhibit P6 references this judgment; it is not discussed in the main judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Joseph John v. Kerala Water Authority & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 18TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 719 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` JOSEPH JOHN, AGED 55 YEARS, MONIPPILLIL HOUSE, AVOLI (PO), MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686670. ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.SHANES METHAR N.KRISHNA PRASAD ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, OBSERVATORY HILLS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033. 2THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH-CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686661. 3THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI, PIN – 685508. ``` ``` 4KERALA CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NIRMAN BHAVAN, METTUKADA, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014. BY ADV.SRI.P.M.JOHNY, SC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 719 OF 2024 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The petitioner in this writ petition is stated to be Works Contractor engaged by the Kerala Water Authority (KWA). ``` ``` 2.The specific case of the petitioner is that he has been contracted with the ‘KWA’ only to supply materials for pipeline works being carried on by them; and that he has no connection with such construction work, or its allied performance. He argues that, obviously, therefore, no “Cess” under the Kerala ``` ``` Construction Workers Welfare Fund Act, could have been imposed against him, since the contract entered into by him has no relation to ``` ``` the construction work at all, or to the ``` ``` construction workers. ``` ``` 3.The petitioner says that, however, in spite of this, 1% of his bill amount is sought ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 719 OF 2024 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` to be now deducted towards “Cess” under the “KCWWF”; and consequently, that he has been constrained to approach this Court, through this writ petition. He asserts that his contentions are supported by the judgments of this Court in Poulose and others v. State of Kerala and others ``` ``` [1993(3)ILR Kerala 675] and Kerala Construction WWF Board v. State of Kerala [1995(2) KLT 724]. ``` ``` 4.Sri.P.M.Johny – learned Standing Counsel for the ‘KWA’, however, in response to the afore submissions of Sri.P.Shanes Methar – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, since the petitioner is a contractor under the ‘KWA’, his obligation to pay “Cess” under the “KCWWF” is unmistakable and unavoidable. He argued that, as long as the petitioner is involved in construction works, he certainly has to pay “Cess” and he cannot refuse it in any manner whatsoever. ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 719 OF 2024` **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 5.It is luculent from the afore rival ``` ``` positions that there is factual disputation as to the nature of the contracts entered into by the petitioner with the ‘KWA’. While he ``` ``` maintains that he is to only supply materials, without having any participation in the actual construction work; the ‘KWA’ appears to take the stand that, even the supply of materials is part of the construction work. ``` ``` 6.However, it must be borne in mind that ``` ``` “KCWWF” Scheme has a particular ambit to it and ``` ``` its purlieus are also well defined. It is only if all the criteria thereunder are satisfied, will the obligation of a contractor to pay ``` ``` “Cess” thereunder be attracted. ``` ``` 7.In the case at hand, as I have already ``` ``` said above, it is the specific contention of the ``` ``` petitioner that he only supplies materials and has no part in the construction work. If this be ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 719 OF 2024 ``` ``` -5- ``` ``` so, certainly, it is a matter which the Superintendent or such other competent Authority of ‘KWA’ must consider, before imposing “Cess” upon him, through an automatic deduction from his bills. ``` ``` 8.When there is a clear factual dispute as ``` ``` afore, it would not be proper for one of the contracting parties unilaterally to impose a detriment on the other, citing that he is liable to pay “Cess”, without even making an assessment of the same and without affording him an ``` ``` opportunity of being heard. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside impugned proceedings ``` ``` and direct the competent Authority of the ‘KWA’ to hear the petitioner and assess his claim, that he is not liable to pay “Cess” under the “KCWWF” Act because, they only supply materials and not concerned with the construction work. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 719 OF 2024 ``` **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` The afore shall be done, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and after assessing his contentions and the germane documentary materials; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible. This shall be done also adverting specifically to the declarations in the afore cited precedents. ``` ``` Needless to say, until such time as the ``` ``` afore is done and the resultant orders communicated to the petitioner, action to ``` ``` recover any amount from his Bill amounts ``` ``` towards “Cess” under the “KCWWF Act”, will ``` ``` stand deferred; and will be taken forward only after the said orders are communicated to him and in terms of the decisions will be arrived at. ``` ``` As a corollary, if, through the afore ``` ``` exercise, it is to be found that “Cess” under ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 719 OF 2024 ``` **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` the “KCWWF Act” cannot be imposed against the petitioner, then the amounts already collected from him under such head will be returned without any avoidable delay. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 719 OF 2024 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 719/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 17-08-2023 TOGETHER WITH THE ACCEPTED SCHEDULE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ``` - `EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF AGREEMENT NO. 29/2023 - 2 4 /SE/PHC/MVPA 08.09.2023` - `EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CB3 VOUCHER PERTAINING TO CC FIRST & PART BILL DATED 29-11-2023` - `EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CB3 VOUCHER PERTAINING TO CC SECOND & PART BILL DATED 8-12-2023` - `EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.10.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 0412- 2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C) NO. 39649 OF 2023`