IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7295 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHLOROPLAST, AKANAD, MUDAKUZHA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER N.SURESH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT NEDIYARA HOUSE, AKANAD, MUDAKUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS FUND BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 7295 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of March, 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 nearly eight light goods carriages bearing Nos. KL 17-3073, KL 17D-4726, KL 17 A- 4520, KL 17-1991, KL 17A-1852, KL 40C-2466, KL 40B- 8443 & KL 40C- 2432 which are being used for the purpose of transporting PVC pipes and other materials from the industrial unit of the petitioner. 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.P9 certificate 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 under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act/Scheme and that the issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court reported in Hymavathi Vs. Special Deputy Tahsildar [2008 (3) KLT 807]. WP(C) No.7295/2010 2 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the case put forth by the petitioner appears to be quite sustainable and the issue is squarely 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 1st respondent, for effecting payment of tax or such other payments in respect of the vehicles as mentioned hereinbefore. 5. In the above circumstance, the 2nd respondent is directed to accept the tax in respect of the vehicles belonging to the petitioner as mentioned above, without insisting to produce any certificate of clearance from the first respondent. The Writ Petition is allowesd as above. No cost. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc