IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 24654 of 2010(F) 1. M/S.PARACKAL DISTRIBUTORS, MANIKKATH ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/ ... Respondent 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, For Petitioner :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Dated :06/08/2010 O R D E R P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 24654 of 2010-F ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T
The challenge involved in this Writ Petition is in respect of the
steps taken by the respondents for realisation of the amount
allegedly payable by the petitioner as contribution under the Kerala
Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is having
two goods carriages bearing Nos. KL 07-BK-7487 and KL 07-BJ-
4328, which are being used for the purpose of transporting sanitary
wares and tiles. It is stated that the petitioner has employed drivers
to drive the above vehicles and they are the employees covered
under the Employees Provident Fund Schemes and the Gratuity
Schemes which is very much evident from Ext.P6 and P7 certificates
issued in this regard. The case of the petitioner is that, since the
employees are covered under the EPF Act/Scheme, there is a clear
provision for exemption and that they are not liable to be covered
again under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund
Act/Scheme. It is stated that the issue is squarely covered by the
W.P(C) No. 24654 of 2010-F 2
decision rendered by this Court reported in Hymavathi Vs. Special
Deputy Tahsildar [2008 (3) KLT 807].
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the
first respondent and the learned standing counsel appearing for the
second respondent as well.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the case put
forth by the petitioner appears to be quite sustainable and the issue
is covered by the decision cited supra. Accordingly, the steps taken
by the respondents demanding contribution to the Kerala Motor
Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund are declared as not correct or
sustainable and the petitioner does not have any necessity to
produce any ‘exemption certificate’ from the second respondent, for
effecting payment of tax in respect of the vehicles as mentioned
5. In the above circumstance, the first respondent is
directed to accept the tax in respect of the vehicles bearing
No.KL07/BK 7487 and KL 07/BJ 4328 belonging to the petitioner as
mentioned above, without insisting to produce any certificate of
clearance from the first respondent.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No cost.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE