Re-Entry Of Toddy Tappers Under Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme Post-Retirement Is Legally Sustainable: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court held that the re-entry of Toddy Tappers under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme after their retirement is legally sustainable.
The Court held thus in a writ petition seeking to declare Clause 33A of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme as ultravires of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 and the Rules and void ab initio in so far as it denies re-entry to the Welfare Fund, to the Toddy Shop Workers.
A Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh observed, “The special treatment extended to Toddy Tappers by amending the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme is due to the peculiar situation existing in the toddy sector. The scarcity of experienced and skilled Toddy Tappers which led to a crisis in the industry is the major reason for bringing amendment to the Scheme permitting re-entry of Toddy Tappers in the Scheme. Taking into consideration the afore fact, it cannot be said that the special treatment extended to Toddy Tappers who are doing a hazardous job is discriminatory vis-a-vis other workers in the toddy sector. The special treatment cannot be held as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2015. The Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund (Amendment) Scheme, 2021 and Ext.P6 Circular No.381 dated 15.07.2019 are legally sustainable. The Toddy Workers cannot claim parity with Toddy Tappers.”
Advocate V.M. Krishnakumar represented the petitioner while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Asok M. Cherian represented the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner was working as a Toddy Tapper in Toddy Shops in Irinjalakkuda Range in Thrissur District from 1984 onwards. He was enrolled in the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund as Toddy Tapper and the subscriptions to the Welfare Fund were paid up to 2004. In the year 2004, he met with an accident and was not able to do the work of toddy tapping, which involved climbing coconut trees. He, therefore, discontinued membership in the Welfare Fund and obtained benefits thereunder. Thereafter, he joined Toddy Shop in Irinjalakkuda Range as Toddy Shop Worker.
However, the petitioner was not granted membership in the Welfare Fund on the ground that the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board had taken a decision that employees retired from service and who obtained benefits from Welfare Fund cannot get readmission to the Fund. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed. The writ appeal was also dismissed. Subsequentyly, the Board decided to grant fresh membership to Toddy Tappers who had earlier went out of the Fund obtaining all the benefits. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation to readmit him. He was before the High Court, seeking membership to the Welfare Fund from 2004 onwards.
The High Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel, noted, “The Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme does not permit re-entry of Toddy Workers after their retirement from service. The Government found that voluntarily retired Toddy Tappers due to health reasons who recover after treatment are rendered unemployed and are in financial hardship. The decision was taken based on a more important reason that there is scarcity of Toddy Tappers in the State. Toddy tapping is a hazardous activity, when compared to other activities in this sector, such as transport, storage and sale of toddy.”
The Court remarked that the young generation is turning away from the industry in view of the hazardous nature of the work which has led to scarcity of experienced Toddy Tappers and has created a crisis in the toddy industry. It added that in such circumstances, the Government decided to permit re-entry of Toddy Tappers into the Welfare Fund Scheme after their retirement.
“It is to be noted that the petitioner was a Toddy Tapper. His retirement earlier was due to an accident. On re-engagement as Toddy worker, the petitioner remitted Welfare Fund contributions which were accepted by the 2nd respondent without any murmur. By the conduct of accepting Welfare Fund contributions remitted on behalf of the petitioner for 12 years, the 2nd respondent has induced the assumption of re-entry of the petitioner in the Welfare Fund by implied representation”, it further noted.
The Court observed that the Board refrained from correcting the petitioner for 12 long years when it was its duty to do so and in such circumstances, it would be illegal, harsh and inequitable to deny to the petitioner the benefit of Welfare Fund Scheme for the period during which Welfare Fund contributions were made by the petitioner and were accepted by the Board.
“The petitioner is therefore entitled to relief in this writ petition. … The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as a member to the Welfare Fund for the period from 01.04.2004 till Welfare Fund contributions/subscriptions were accepted by respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner will be entitled to get enhanced Welfare Fund benefits taking into account the aforesaid period also”, it also directed.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition and granted reliefs to the petitioner.
Cause Title- C.R. Sudhan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:73321)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates V.M. Krishnakumar and P.S. Sidharthan.
Respondents: AAG Asok M. Cherian, Government Pleader Sabeena P. Ismail, and SC Renil Anto Kandamkulathy.
