IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7285 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.MURUKANANDAN,S/O.PALANISWAMI, VANNAMADA PO,CHITTUR , PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.B.SHAMEERA SRI.T.T.SUDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD. PIN 678001 2. STATE OF KERALA ,REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001 3. KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WELFARE FUND B OARD, REP.BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011 ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.7447/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7285 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-09-W-8182 EXT.P2. COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMITS PGD 9/354/2009 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE APPLICATION EXTP4. COPY OF THE CITATION IN RAJESH VS. JOINT RTO (2003) (2) KLT 615. EXT.P5. COPY OF JUDGMENT EXT.P6. COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.7285, 7373, 7380, 7393, 7411, 7421, 7422 & 7447 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these writ petitions are registered owners of tractors which are more particularly described in the certificates of registration produced in the respective cases. They have filed this writ petition for a declaration that as the tractors owned by them are used for agricultural operations which are seasonal, they would not come within the scope of the expression “Motor Transport undertaking” as defined in section 2(h) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to exempt them from making payment of contribution to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund with immediate effect. The petitioners rely on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O (2009 (2) KLT 615) to contend for the position that only the vehicle owners operating vehicles which carry passengers or goods or both for hire or reward fall within the definition of the term “Motor Transport undertaking”, and therefore, as the petitioners use their tractors only for agricultural purposes which are seasonal in nature, they are not W.P.(C) No.7285 of 2011 etc. 2 liable to pay contribution to the welfare fund. 2. I heard Sri.H.Badruddin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Basant Balaji, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.K.S.Manu, the learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent. The vehicles owned by the petitioners are tractors. The term “motor transport undertaking” is defined in section 2(h) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 to mean a motor transport undertaking engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward, and includes a private carrier. The term “private carrier” is not defined in the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985. Section 2(i) of the Act however states that the words and expressions used but not defined in the Act but defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in that Act. The term “private carrier” is defined in section 2(22) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to mean the owner of a transport vehicle other than a public carrier who uses that vehicle solely for the carriage of goods which are his property or the carriage of which is necessary for the purposes of his business not being a business of providing transport, or who uses the vehicle for any of the W.P.(C) No.7285 of 2011 etc. 3 purposes specified in sub-section (2) of section 42. 3. From the definition of the terms “motor transport undertaking” and “private carrier”, it is clear that the liability to pay contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund is only on vehicle owners operating vehicles for carrying passengers or goods or both, for hire or reward. In other words, as held by the Division of this Court in Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O (supra) only those employees who are engaged in goods vehicles or passenger vehicles are covered by the provisions of the Act. It has therefore to be necessarily held that the drivers engaged by the petitioners to operate their tractors which are essentially used for agricultural purposes and are not used to carry goods or passengers for hire or reward cannot be said to be covered by the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985. In such circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing that in the event of the petitioners submitting an appropriate petition before the third respondent for a certificate to the effect that no amount is due from them by way of contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, the said authority shall consider the same in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7285 of 2011 etc. 4 Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O (2009 (2) KLT 615) and issue a certificate to that effect expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of the application. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.