IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30983 of 2010(W) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.FIBRE QUEEN MATTRESSES PVT.LTD., REGD.OFFICE, PMC XV/42, FIBRE QUEEN HOUSE, A.M.ROAD, PLERUMBAVOOR-683 542, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BIJU PAUL. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE TAXATION OFFICER, SUB R.T.OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542. 2. KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN - 695 001. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, KMTWWFB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30983 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is not accepting Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect to vehicles owned by them, insisting on production of proof regarding payment of contributions due to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. The petitioner had produced Ext.P2 certificate which will indicate that the establishment of the petitioner is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Act, 1952, and 5 of their employees are covered under the scheme. It is contended that since the petitioner's establishment is one covered under the EPF & MP Act and under the scheme formulated thereunder, the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and the Scheme thereunder is not applicable to them. W.P.(C).30983/10-W -2- 2. The question raised as above now stands settled through a decision of this court in Hymavathi Vs. Special Deputy Tahsildar (2008 (3) KLT 807), in favour of the petitioner. 3. Heard, Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that if the establishment is covered under the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, the petitioner is not liable for payment of contributions to the Welfare Fund. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to accept Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect to vehicles owned by the petitioner, without insisting for proof regarding payment of contributions to the Welfare Fund, provided the petitioner produces proof with respect to payment of contributions under the EPF scheme. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb