ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the Order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 30-11-1988 holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the Suit filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for a declaration that they were not liable to pay any contribution in respect of Toddy Shop No.22 for the year 1983-84 and for issue of injunction order restraining the appellant and respondent Nos. 3 & 4 from realising the disputed amount from the plaintiffs. 3. The appellant raised a preliminary objection before the Trial Court that in view of section 17(A) of the Kerala Toddy Worker's Welfare Fund Act, 1969, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Trial Court upheld the appellant's objection holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed Revision Petition before the High Court against the Trial Court Order. A learned Single Judge of the High Court has held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. The High Court set aside the Trial Court's Order and remanded the Suit to Trial Court to determine the question whether the plaintiffs were employers within the ambit of the Act. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed section 17(A) of the Act clearly ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. The question whether the Plaintiff-respondents are employers is a collateral fact which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the said Act. The Act provides a self contained Code and any dispute regarding the application of the Act must be determined by the authorities constituted under the Act. In our opinion the learned Single Judge committed error in holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the question raised before it. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court (Second Appeal No.45/84 decided on January 9, 1990) has taken a contrary view holding that the view-Sakai by the learned Single Judge was incorrect. We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench that section 17(A) excludes the Civil Court's jurisdiction. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dated 30-11-1989 and restore the order of the Trial Court. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.