IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24238 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ NIRMALA STATIONERIES, MUTTAM BAZARM, CHERTHALA P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, A.C. JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA WELFARE FUND BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRASNSPORT OFFICER, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN R1, 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 24238 OF 2008 I ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a partnership firm which owns six tempo vans. According to the petitioner, petitioner employed two drivers on permanent basis whose names are mentioned in the writ petition. The complaint of the petitioner is that vehicle tax in respect of his vehicles is not till accepted by the 3rd respondent, namely the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Cherthala. Petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 before the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the provisions of Motor Workers Welfare Fund Act does not enable the authorities under the Act to impose an obligation for the payment of contribution to the Fund in respect of persons who are not in the rolls of employment. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the second respondent and learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader points out that as far WPC.24238/08 : 2 : as the 3rd respondent is concerned, either no objection must be obtained from the 2nd respondent or evidence must be produced for contribution and then tax can be permitted to be paid. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that actually the petitioner should have approached the 2nd respondent which the petitioner has not done. I feel that this is an issue which should be first considered by the statutory authority, namely the 2nd respondent and the petitioner can produce materials before the 2nd respondent and a decision in accordance with law will be taken with an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner and the employees concerned. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that at least 20 days time may be granted. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner presses the urgency for the decision in the matter in view of the fact that without payment of vehicle tax, the vehicle cannot be operated. In such circumstances, writ petition is disposed of as follows. If the petitioner files a representation before the 2nd WPC.24238/08 : 3 : respondent, the 2nd respondent will conduct an enquiry in the matter with notice to the petitioner as also the employees concerned and will take a decision in the matter in accordance with law, as early as possible, at any rate, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the representation. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE