IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 8306 of 2008(L) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- V.S. ANDREWS, VELIPURACKAL HOUSE, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O., CHERTHALA - 688539. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.MANHU SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI. HARILAL, SC, KMTWWF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 8306 OF 2008 L ==================== Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The dispute in this writ petition is against the liability of the petitioner to pay contribution under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act for two employees. Petitioner submits that his vehicle, of which Ext.P1 is the Registration Certificate, is not covered by Table 1 of Ext.P7, the scheme framed under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act under which the contribution is collected. 2. I am not in a position to accept the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Going by Ext.P7, for contract carriages, the minimum number of employees fixed for each unit is 2. Since the vehicle of the petitioner is admittedly a contract carriage, the petitioner is bound to pay contribution in terms of Table 1 for two employees. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Exts.P8 and P9 and contends that in respect of similar vehicles, the Board has collected contribution only for one employee each. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is answered by the standing counsel for the respondents by contending that in the matter of assessment in respect of the vehicles mentioned in Exts. P8 and P9, it was on account of a mistake WPC 8306/08 :2 : that the contribution has been collected only for one employee and this mistake is in the process of correction. Even if what the petitioner submits is factually true, a mistaken assessment cannot be the basis for claiming parity and so long as under the scheme, contribution is payable for 2 employees, petitioner cannot avoid such payment. 4. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp