Judgment :- 1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the first respondent, Welfare Fund Inspector, Toddy Workers Welfare Fund, Palakkad and Ext.P4 order passed by the Government of Kerala. Ext.P2 is an order dated 23.2.1991 passed by the first respondent in exercise of his powers under Section 8(1) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act�). Ext.P4 is an order dated 20.4.1995 passed by the Government rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 8(5) of the Act against Ext.P2 order. 2. As per Section 8(1) of the Act, the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector or any other Welfare Fund Inspector authorized by him in this behalf may, by order, determine the amount due from any employer under the provisions of the Act or of the Scheme and for this purpose may conduct enquiry as he may deem necessary. The word ‘employer’ has been defined in the Act as any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person one or more employees and includes any person, who has a licence for the manufacture, distribution, storage or sale of toddy under the Abkari Act for the time being in force. As per Section 8(5) of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1) of Section 8 may prefer an appeal to the Government or any other authority as may be specified by the Government within sixty days of the receipt of the order and the decision of the Government or of such authority on such appeal shall be final. 3. In Ext.P2 order passed under Section 8(1) of the Act, the first respondent found that as employers in respect of Toddy Shop Nos.52, 54, 55, 56 and 57 of Pattambi Range for the period 1988-89, the petitioner C.Rajan and the 6th respondent Chandran were liable to pay a sum of Rs.71,347/- to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund. It was also held that after adjusting then advance amounts paid, a balance amount of Rs.40,398/- should be paid towards the Welfare Fund and another sum of Rs.4,949/- should be paid towards interest by the employers within seven days. 4. It was also held that after adjusting then advance amounts paid, a balance amount of Rs.40,398/- should be paid towards the Welfare Fund and another sum of Rs.4,949/- should be paid towards interest by the employers within seven days. 4. Against Ext.P2 order of the first respondent, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal dated 25.4.1991, contending that he was not an employer in respect of the above mentioned Toddy Shops during the year 1988-89, and that the 6th respondent-Chandran was the licensee and the employer in respect of the said toddy shops and that the petitioner was not liable to make any contribution to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund as demanded by the first respondent. However, in Ext.P4 order, the Government upheld the order of the first respondent and rejected the petitioner’s appeal. 5. Admittedly the licensee in respect of Toddy Shop Nos.52, 54, 55, 56 and 57 of Pattambi Range for the period 1988-89 was the sixth respondent Chandran and not the petitioner. Before issuing Ext.P2 order, a notice under Section 8(4) of the Act had been sent to the 6th respondent by registered A/D. post on 6.5.1989 requiring him to be present for the enquiry on 20.5.1989 along with the wage register and muster roll. The workers and the office bearers of their trade unions also were directed to be present for the enquiry. The 6th respondent participated in the enquiry held on 20.5.1989. He admitted that he was the licensee for the above mentioned toddy shops for the year 1988-89 and that the toddy shops were conduct by him and that correct entries had been made in the pass book of the workers regarding the quantity of toddy tapped by the workers and the wages paid to them on each day. The worker’s unions produced statements regarding the wages of its members. In the further enquiry conducted on 17.6.1989, Sri.K.P.Sasi, one of the salesmen in T.S.No.54 stated that even though the licensee in respect of T.S.Nos.52, 54, 55, 56 and 57 was Chandran, S/o.Narayanan (the 6th respondent), the said toddy shops were being actually conducted by Chittanipara Rajan (the petitioner herein). He also stated that the wages and salary of the workers were paid by the said Rajan. A further notice of enquiry was sent on 15.3.1990 to both the petitioner and the 6th respondent. But they received the notice only after the date of enquiry i.e. 21.3.1990. He also stated that the wages and salary of the workers were paid by the said Rajan. A further notice of enquiry was sent on 15.3.1990 to both the petitioner and the 6th respondent. But they received the notice only after the date of enquiry i.e. 21.3.1990. In the enquiry conducted on 21.3.1990, the workers gave statements to the effect that the 6th respondent Chandran was only the licensee and that he was not coming to the shops and that it was the petitioner Rajan, who came to the shops and collected the amounts from the salesmen everyday. Another notice dated 4.4.1990 was sent to the petitioner by the first respondent regarding the arrears of contribution towards the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund for the year 1988-89 for conducting shop Nos.52, 54, 55, 56 and 57 of Pattambi Range. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed objection stating that the 6th respondent was the licensee in respect of the said shops for the year 1988-89 and that petitioner had absolutely no connection with the shops. In his objection dated 24.4.1990, the petitioner stated that the notice for the enquiry on 19.4.1990 had been received by him late and that he could not produce any muster roll since he had not conducted any of the shops and that he was prepared to give evidence at any time. He request for another date to give evidence. Accordingly notice was given on 20.4.1990 for an enquiry on 4.5.1990. But neither the petitioner nor his representative was present for the enquiry on 4.5.1990. In the enquiry conducted on 4.5.1990 one Balakrishnan, S/o.Gopalan, an employee of T.S.No.54 gave statement that even though the 6th respondent was the licensee in respect of said toddy shops during the year 1988-89, the toddy shops were actually conducted by the petitioner. He also stated that for 2/3 years the petitioner was conducting the toddy shops after taking licence in the name of other people. He further stated that the petitioner had actually conducted the shops during 1988-89 and had received employees contribution to the Provident Fund and the Welfare Fund. He requested that the liability to pay the contribution to the Welfare Fund should be fixed against the petitioner also. 6. He further stated that the petitioner had actually conducted the shops during 1988-89 and had received employees contribution to the Provident Fund and the Welfare Fund. He requested that the liability to pay the contribution to the Welfare Fund should be fixed against the petitioner also. 6. On the basis of the enquiry conducted by the first respondent, the first respondent sent a pre-assessment notice dated 4.2.1991 to the petitioner informing him that it was provisionally determined that an amount of Rs.71,347/- was due towards toddy workers welfare fund and requiring him to file objection, if any, in writing within seven days of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 9.2.1991, but no objection was filed by him. Hence the first respondent passed a final determination order under Section 8 on the basis of the enquiry conducted by him and the evidence given by the employees of the toddy shops. In Ext.P2 final determination order, the first respondent came to the conclusion that even though the 6th respondent was the licensee, the shops were actually conducted by the petitioner and therefore, as per the definition of employer given in Section 2(c) of the Act, the petitioner was an employer in respect of the above mentioned toddy shops and that he was liable to pay the contribution to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund. The above finding was confirmed by the appellant authority (i.e. Government) in Ext.P4 order. 7. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, notwithstanding the evidence given by the workers to the effect that the petitioner was actually conducting the shop and in spite of the definition of ‘employer’, the petitioner cannot be made liable in view of the clear admission of the 6th respondent before the first respondent that the 6th respondent was the licensee of the shops and he was conducting the shops. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1338 of 2002 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.3791 of 2001, a copy of which was made available by the learned counsel. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1338 of 2002 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.3791 of 2001, a copy of which was made available by the learned counsel. In the above judgment the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: “A perusal of Section 2(c) shows that it refers to the person who employs any person, whether directly or through any other person or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, as employer. The employment by any person can be for himself or for any other person. Merely because the person is associated with the conduct of the business of an establishment or shop, it cannot be said that he had employed the workers on his own behalf. There may be cases where it can be shown that besides the owner any other person conducting the business of the said shop may employ workers on his own behalf and not on behalf of original owner. But in the absence of proof to the contrary particularly in view of the statement of principal employer that he had employed the workers, the intermediary persons could not be held to be the employer of the workers who were employed for the conduct of the business in the shop covered under the Act. Law pre-supposes the conduct of a legal business and cannot be interpreted in a manner which frustrates the object of the Act and results in not only miscarriage of justice but violation of the statutory provision of law. If, under the Rules, the licensee was not authorized to lease out or sub-let the whole or any portion of the privilege or licence granted to him for conducting the Abkari business, holding the appellants as employer with respect to the licensee’s shop would amount to facilitate the violation of the Kerala Abkari Act and the Rules framed there under. Such an interpretation is not called for as it is against the public policy. Such an interpretation is not called for as it is against the public policy. In any particular case, where the authorities find that besides the licensee any other person conducting the business in a licenced premises under the Abkari Act and the Rules framed there under is also liable to contribute to the fund under the Act, they are under the legal duty to assert and positively hold that such persons were the employers vis-à -vis the workers and that they were conducting the business either with the legal authority of the licensee or the licensing authority. The high Court has taken a general view of the matter without reference to the purpose and object of the Act and the law under which the licence to run the shop was granted. The impugned judgment is thus not sustainable�. In the present case it is not disputed that the 6th respondent was the licensee of the toddy shops and that the petitioner was not the licensee. It is also not disputed that the 6th respondent had stated before the first respondent that he was the licensee of the toddy shops and that the toddy shops were conducted by him. He had also stated that correct entries had been made by him in the pass book of the workers regarding the quantity of toddy tapped by them and the wages paid to them on each day. The above statements of the 6th respondent were recorded by the first respondent in the enquiry conducted by him in the matter. It is also in evidence that advance payments were made towards contribution to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund by the 6th respondent. Neither the first respondent nor the Government has a case that the petitioner was conducting the business either with the legal authority of the licensee or the licensing authority. There is no material before this court to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was conducting the business either with the legal authority of the licensee or the licensing authority. Under such circumstances I am of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent in the light of the above mentioned judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. 8. Under such circumstances I am of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent in the light of the above mentioned judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. 8. Hence Exts.P2 and P4 orders are set aside and respondents 1 to 5 are directed not to take any revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of Exts.P2 and P4 orders. The first respondent is free to reconsider the entire matter in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1338 of 2002 arising out of S.L.P.No.3791 of 2001 and pass fresh orders under Section 8 of the Act. 9. The original petition is disposed of in the above terms.