IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5151 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PARAGON POLYMER PRODUCTS PVT.LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE, P.B.NO.61, PARAGON BUILDING, SREENIVASA IYER ROAD, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR REJI ABRAHAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-686 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.5151 of 2011-T ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Contention of the petitioner company is that it is a registered establishment under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (EPF Act) and all the employees of the said establishment, including those who are employed in the operation of vehicles owned by the petitioner, are covered under the provisions of the above said Act and the Scheme formulated thereunder (EPF Scheme). As such the petitioner is eligible for exemption from the purview of the provisions contained in the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and Scheme framed thereunder, with respect to vehicles owned by them. It is also contended that the petitioner is not liable for payment of contributions to the welfare fund. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is not accepting motor vehicle tax with respect to three of the vehicles owned by the petitioner, insisting upon production of proof regarding payment of contributions to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. W.P(C) No.5151 of 2011-T 2 3. The issue in question now stands covered by a decision of this Court in Hymavathi V. Special Deputy Tahsildar (2008(3) KLT 807). If the establishment of the petitioner is registered under the provisions of the EPF Act and if the employees engaged in operation of the vehicles are covered under the EPF Scheme, the petitioner could not be held liable for payment of contributions to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, is the dictum. 4. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that denial of acceptance of motor vehicles tax with respect to vehicles owned by the petitioner, insisting upon production of proof regarding payment of contributions to the welfare fund, could not be justified. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to accept motor vehicles tax due with respect to vehicles owned by the petitioner, provided proof regarding payment of contributions under the EPF Scheme with respect to employees of the establishment for the current period is produced. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab //True Copy//