Royson Joseph vs Regional Transport Officer on 9 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 579 of 2009(R)


1. ROYSON JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL
                       ...       Respondent

2. JOINT R.T.O., ALUVA.

3. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF

4. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.HARIHARAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :09/01/2009

 O R D E R
                        K. M. JOSEPH, J.
                 --------------------------------------
                   W.P.C. NO. 579 OF 2009 R
                  --------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 9th January, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

Petitioner is a contract carriage operator. Petitioner’s

establishment is covered by the Employees’ Provident Fund

Scheme. Ext.P1 Certificate is produced. Complaint revolves

around the refusal on the part of the taxing authority to receive

the tax, citing the liability to pay the amounts due under the

Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Scheme.

Petitioner had approached this Court earlier and this Court had

delivered Ext.P2 Judgment. Subsequent to the same, according

to petitioner, petitioner has sold three vehicles and purchased

four vehicles. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to the

immunity from payment under the Kerala Motor Transport

Workers’ Welfare Fund Scheme on account of the establishment

being covered by the Employees’ Provident Fund Act.

WPC.579/09 R 2

2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Provident

Fund Commissioner as also the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the fourth respondent besides the learned Government

Pleader. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:

If the petitioner produces the Attendance Register, Wage

Register/Salary Acquittance Register and any other document

which the petitioner wishes to produce in support of his claim

that all his employees are covered under the Employees’

Provident Fund Act before the third respondent at 11 AM on

12.01.2009, the third respondent will look into the same and

issue a communication to the petitioner, if the petitioner is so

entitled, certifying that the petitioner’s workers are covered by

the Employees’ Provident Fund Act. If such communication is

produced before respondents 1 and 2, there will be a direction to

respondents 1 and 2 to accept the tax without insisting on

WPC.579/09 R 3

payment of any amount under the Kerala Motor Transport

Workers’ Welfare Fund Act.

Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

kbk.

// True Copy //
PS to Judge