V.S. Andrews vs State Of Kerala on 19 March, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8306 of 2008(L)


1. V.S. ANDREWS, VELIPURACKAL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.MANHU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :19/03/2008

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                        ===============
                      W.P.(C) NO. 8306 OF 2008 L
                    ====================

                Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008

                             J U D G M E N T

The dispute in this writ petition is against the liability of the

petitioner to pay contribution under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare

Fund Act for two employees. Petitioner submits that his vehicle, of which

Ext.P1 is the Registration Certificate, is not covered by Table 1 of Ext.P7,

the scheme framed under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare

Fund Act under which the contribution is collected.

2. I am not in a position to accept the contention raised by the

counsel for the petitioner. Going by Ext.P7, for contract carriages, the

minimum number of employees fixed for each unit is 2. Since the vehicle

of the petitioner is admittedly a contract carriage, the petitioner is bound

to pay contribution in terms of Table 1 for two employees.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Exts.P8 and P9

and contends that in respect of similar vehicles, the Board has collected

contribution only for one employee each. This contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is answered by the standing counsel for the

respondents by contending that in the matter of assessment in respect of

the vehicles mentioned in Exts. P8 and P9, it was on account of a mistake

WPC 8306/08
:2 :

that the contribution has been collected only for one employee and this

mistake is in the process of correction. Even if what the petitioner submits

is factually true, a mistaken assessment cannot be the basis for claiming

parity and so long as under the scheme, contribution is payable for 2

employees, petitioner cannot avoid such payment.

4. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised.

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.

Rp