IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 3198 of 2008(E) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- POPULAR MEGA MOTORS (INDIA) LTD., VEE VEE TOWERS, N.H. BYE PASS ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI - 682 024, REPRESENTED BY IS DEPUTY MANAGER, MANOJ. K BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM - 682 025. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN SRI. P. RAMAKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 3198 OF 2008 F ===================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent's insistence on its coverage under the Motor Workers Welfare Fund Act and the scheme for accepting tax in respect of the vehicles owned and possessed by the petitioner is illegal. According to the petitioner, it is an establishment covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act and therefore in view of the provisions contained in the Welfare Fund Act, such establishments are exempted from the provisions of the Act. Petitioner also refers to Ext.P1 application made by him for being exempted from the provisions of the Welfare Fund Act and submits that by Ext.P2 such exemption was granted until the end of December, 2007. However, according to them, the respondents are again insisting on payment of contribution under the Welfare Fund Scheme for WPC 3198/08 :2 : the quarter commencing from 1st of January, 2008 and that it is in this background this writ petition has been filed. 2. From the provisions of the Welfare Fund Act, it is obvious that if an establishment is covered under the EPF Act, such establishment is exempted. In this case, from Ext.P1, it can be seen that the petitioners' is a covered establishment under the EPF Act and if that be so, there is absolutely no legal sanction for the 2nd respondent to demand that petitioner should pay Welfare Fund Contribution in respect of the employees of the establishment. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 2nd respondent shall accept motor vehicle tax from the petitioner without insisting on a clearance certificate issued by the 3rd respondent on the petitioner producing satisfactory proof to the effect that up to date contribution under the EPF Act has been paid by the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp