IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 37241 of 2007(H) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. ANTONY.T.X., S/O.XAVIER, THAPPALODATHU HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOSEPH FEDERICK, 5/70 CHERIYAKALLATH HOUSE, PONNARI MANGALAM, MULAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM. 3. BALA SUBRAMANIAN I.C., S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN.I.C., ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHI-18. 4. GEORGE.M.V., S/O.UNNI, MULLOTH HOUSE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 5. SURENDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, 49/973 CHADAYAPPILLY PARAMBU, CHANGAMBUZHA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24. 6. SEBASTINE.T.B., S/O.BERNARD, THALAMILLATHU HOUSE, CHAMBAKARA, VYTTILA P.O., COCHIN. 7. JAMES.N.J., S/O.NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA P.O., N.PARAVOOR. 8. EDWARD P.T., S/O.XAVIER P.V., POLAYIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, COCHIN. 9. KALYANA SUNDARAM, S/O.CHANDRA SEKHARAN, 44/242, ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHI-18. 10. RADHAKRISHNAN.M.P., S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN, MASAMPADANNA HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN-26. 11. JAIKUMAR.K.S., S/O.SANKARAN, K.K.RAMA NIVAS, MARKET ROAD, COCHIN. 12. SREEJA C.K., AGED 24, D/O.KUTTAN, CHEERANKUZHY HOUSE, P.C.CROSS ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA.P.O., COCHIN. 13. PHILOMINA, AGED 51, W/O JOSEPH P.G., PANAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, NORTH JANATHA ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 14. K.S.SYLA, AGED 34, D/O.SANKARAN, KAINIKKARA HOUSE, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, THATHIYOOR, KAKKANADU, COCHIN. 15. RAMALATH UMMER, AGED 41, W/O.UMMER, 33/1353 A PONATHERI HOUSE, CHALIKKAVATOOM, COCHIN-682 625. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR REHABILITATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 4. THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 37241 OF 2007 H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer made in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents not to collect advance contribution under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund from the petitioners. Petitioners also pray that respondents 3 and 4 may be directed not to insist on production of welfare fund contribution payment receipt for receiving motor vehicles tax from the petitioners. There is a further prayer to declare that Section 4(7) and (8) and (15) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 introduced by the Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2005 and Sections 8A and 9 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 introduced by the Kerala Motor Transport Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 2005 as ultravires and inapplicable to the petitioners. 2. Petitioners submit that they have purchased tempo goods carriers and are plying it by themselves. Their attempt to pay motor vehicles tax was unsuccessful since the 3rd respondent had W.P.(C) No. 37241 OF 2007 -2- demanded that the petitioners should produce a clearance certificate from the 2nd respondent of having paid the dues to the 2nd respondent as a condition precedent for accepting the motor vehicles tax. It is in this background the writ petition has been filed. 3. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 4(7) and (8) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, every registered owner or person having possession or control of a motor vehicle in respect of a motor transport undertaking liable to pay contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985, (21 of 1985) shall, before effecting payment of tax produce before the Taxation Officer the receipt of remittance of the contribution towards welfare fund due upto the preceding month. Sub-section (8) provides that no tax under the Act shall be collected unless the receipt of remittance of contribution towards welfare fund mentioned in sub-section (7) is produced. 4. In view of the statutory provision as above, the 3rd respondent cannot be faulted for having insisted on the production of receipt of remittance of contribution of the welfare fund dues. The amendment incorporated in sub-section (7) and (8) to Section 4 W.P.(C) No. 37241 OF 2007 -3- of the Taxation Act has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Siraj v. Regional Transport Officer {2007 (3) KLT 929}. For this reason the challenge raised by the petitioners against the aforesaid provisions and also section 15, is only to be repelled. The judgment referred to above also deals with the validity of Section 8 and 8A of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act which incorporated provisions corresponding to Section 4(7) and (8) of the Taxation Act. Therefore, the challenge to Section 8 and 8A of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act is also answered by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment. 5. Yet another contention that is raised by the petitioners is that the final determination order as contemplated under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, has not been passed and that if such an order is passed, it would have been possible for the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedies that are available. I heard the Standing Counsel for the Welfare Fund Board, the 2nd respondent. It is pointed out that the petitioners have not registered themselves under the 2nd respondent and it is on account of this that the Board has not taken action for passing the final determination order. Therefore, the complaint of the petitioners W.P.(C) No. 37241 OF 2007 -4- arises basically on account of their own wilful default in registering themselves under the 2nd respondent, for which, the 2nd respondent cannot be faulted. Petitioners submit that they are not interested in getting themselves registered under the Welfare Fund Act. A reading of the Welfare Fund Act gives the impression that coverage under the Welfare Fund Act is not an optional one, but compulsory. If that be so, petitioners are bound to get themselves registered under the Welfare Fund Act. For all these reasons I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-