IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1208 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.K.RAVI @ KUMBALAM RAVI, PRESIDENT, PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, ERNAKULAM GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, RESIDING AT SREELAKSHMI NIVAS, THYKOODAM, UDAYA ROAD, VYTTILA. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONARATE, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA TRANSPORTS WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN, ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2008,ALONG WITH W.P. (C). NO.1071/2008 AND CONNECTED CASES,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.1208/2008-R: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE R.C. PARTICULARS OF THE BUS BEARING REG. NO. KL 7 AE 9111. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 26/09/07 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/11/07 IN W.P.(C). 32778/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 9272/88. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/11/1988 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 1208/08, 32085, 32352, 32398, 32457, 32584, 32590, 32778, 32904, 33602, 33672, 33975, 34117 & 34608 of 2007 and 861,921, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 1061, 1071, 1157, 1174, 1350, 1746, 1999, 2542, 2662, 2992, 3059, 3060, 3285, 3801 & 3899 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 18, 2008 JUDGMENT In all these cases, petitioners are educational institutions owning buses used for transporting students. The trouble arose when motor vehicle tax in respect of buses owned by them was refused to be accepted by the Taxation Officer for the reason that the respective petitioners did not produce certificate issued under sec.8A of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act of having paid the dues under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. 2. The fact that the schools are not motor transport undertakings as defined under sec.2(h) of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act has been clarified by the State Government and adopting the said clarification it has been held by WP(C) 1208/08 etc. Page numbers this court in the case of Toc' H Public School v. District Executive Officer - 1992 (1) KLT SN 37 Case No. 49 that schools have no obligation to pay welfare fund dues. In view of this judgment, the insistence of the Taxation Officer requiring production of clearance certificate as above is clearly illegal. 3. In some of these cases the establishments are also covered by the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Such establishments are excluded from the purview of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act by virtue of the second proviso to sec.4 of the Act. Therefore, for that reason, such of those establishments are also liable to be exempted from the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. 4. In all these cases, interim orders have been passed requiring the Taxation Officer to accept tax without insisting on production of a clearance certificate as contemplated in sec.8A of the Welfare Fund Act and it is submitted that on that basis tax has been paid and has been accepted. 5. In view of the above, I make it clear that the petitioners do not have the liability to pay contribution under the Motor Transport WP(C) 1208/08 etc. Page numbers Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. Consequently they are not liable to produce the certificate as contemplated in sec.8A of the Welfare Fund Act and tax is liable to be imposed. 6. Referring to the statement filed, though the counsel for the respondent Board attempted to argue that schools also will come within the expression “motor transport undertaking”, I am not inclined to agree with that primarily for the reason that so far the Board has not initiated any action on that basis, but has accepted the judgment referred to above. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-