IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1208 of 2008(R)
1. A.K.RAVI @ KUMBALAM RAVI, PRESIDENT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP MOHAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 1208/08, 32085, 32352, 32398, 32457,
32584, 32590, 32778, 32904, 33602, 33672,
33975, 34117 & 34608 of 2007
and
861,921, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 1061, 1071,
1157, 1174, 1350, 1746, 1999, 2542, 2662,
2992, 3059, 3060, 3285, 3801 & 3899 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated: February 18, 2008
JUDGMENT
In all these cases, petitioners are educational institutions
owning buses used for transporting students. The trouble arose
when motor vehicle tax in respect of buses owned by them was
refused to be accepted by the Taxation Officer for the reason that
the respective petitioners did not produce certificate issued under
sec.8A of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act of having
paid the dues under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund
Scheme.
2. The fact that the schools are not motor transport
undertakings as defined under sec.2(h) of the Motor Transport
Workers Welfare Fund Act has been clarified by the State
Government and adopting the said clarification it has been held by
WP(C) 1208/08 etc.
Page numbers
this court in the case of Toc’ H Public School v. District Executive
Officer – 1992 (1) KLT SN 37 Case No. 49 that schools have no
obligation to pay welfare fund dues. In view of this judgment, the
insistence of the Taxation Officer requiring production of clearance
certificate as above is clearly illegal.
3. In some of these cases the establishments are also covered
by the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952. Such establishments are excluded from the purview of the
Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act by virtue of the second
proviso to sec.4 of the Act. Therefore, for that reason, such of
those establishments are also liable to be exempted from the
provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act.
4. In all these cases, interim orders have been passed
requiring the Taxation Officer to accept tax without insisting on
production of a clearance certificate as contemplated in sec.8A of
the Welfare Fund Act and it is submitted that on that basis tax has
been paid and has been accepted.
5. In view of the above, I make it clear that the petitioners do
not have the liability to pay contribution under the Motor Transport
WP(C) 1208/08 etc.
Page numbers
Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. Consequently they are not liable to
produce the certificate as contemplated in sec.8A of the Welfare
Fund Act and tax is liable to be imposed.
6. Referring to the statement filed, though the counsel for the
respondent Board attempted to argue that schools also will come
within the expression “motor transport undertaking”, I am not
inclined to agree with that primarily for the reason that so far the
Board has not initiated any action on that basis, but has accepted
the judgment referred to above.
These writ petitions are disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-