IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15615 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- CHLOROPLAST, KOOVAPPADY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER N. SURESH, RESIDING AT NEDIYARA HOUSE, AKANAD, MUDAKUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. THE WELFARE OFFICER, MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS FUND BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM – 682 018. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 542. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, P.B. NO. 1895, KALOOR, KOCHI – 682 017. R1 BY ADV. SRI. P. RAMAKRISHNAN, SC R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL R4 BY ADVS. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 15615 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking a direction for acceptance of motor vehicle tax with respect to vehicles owned by the petitioner, without insisting for production of proof regarding payment of contribution to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. Contention of the petitioner is that the establishment of the petitioner firm is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the said establishment is paying contribution to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, formulated thereunder. Therefore the motor transport undertaking in question are exempted from the purview of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and the scheme framed thereunder, is the contention. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion and in Ext.P1 judgment the respondents were directed to accept tax with respect to 8 WP(C) .15615/2011 2 vehicles owned by the petitioner. The present grievance of the petitioner is that with respect to vehicles acquired subsequently, which is not covered under Ext.P1 judgment, the authorities are insisting for payment of contributions to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, as a condition for the purpose of accepting motor vehicle tax. 3. It is pertinent to note that the legal position stands covered through Ext.P1 judgment. If the petitioner is paying contribution to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, they are not liable for payment of contributions to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. Therefore, there is no justification in insisting for production of proof regarding payment of contribution with respect to any vehicle owned by the petitioner, subject to the condition of the petitioner producing proof regarding payment of the contribution to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme or payment of Gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of making it clarified that the benefit granted under Ext.P1 judgment will be applicable to all vehicles owned by the petitioner herein, provided WP(C) .15615/2011 3 the petitioner produce proof at the time of remittance of motor vehicle tax to the effect that they are paying contribution to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme or Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act to the respective employees engaged in such vehicles. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .15615/2011 4