IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4766 of 2009(R) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. PRADEEP KUMAR, N.G.S/O.GOPI, RESIDING AT NEDIYARA, PUTHANVELIKKARA, NORTH PAROOR, 2. SINSEN V.A.S/O.AUGUSTINE, RESIDING AT VAZHAPPILLI, PUTHANVELIKKARA, NORTH PAROOR. 3. P.X.VARGHESE,S/O.XAVIER,RESIDING AT PAYYAPPILLI,ELANTHIKKARA, NORTH PAROOR 4. SHAJU P.Y.S/O.YOHANNAN RESIDING AT PADAYATHIL, PUTHANVELIKKARA, NORTH PAROOR. 5. DILEEP RAJ, S/O.GOPI N.N. RESIDING AT NEDIYARA HOUSE, PUTHANVELIKKARA, NORTH PAROOR. 6. JOSE V.C.S/O.CHUMMAR,RESIDING AT VAZHAPPILLI, PUTHANVELIKKARA, NORTH PAROOR. 7. P.P.THOMAS S/O.POULOSE, RESIDING AT PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, PUTHANVELIKKARA, NORTH PAROOR 8. T.C.ANTONY,S/O.K.T.CHEEKKU, RESIDING AT THARAYIL HOUSE, THIRUTHIPPURAM, PUTHANVELIKKARA, NORTH PAROOR. 9. JOSE V.M. S/O.MATHAPPAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKAN, PUTHANVELIKKARA, NORTH PAROOR. 10. N.N.GOPI, RESIDING AT NEDIYARA, PUTHANVELIKKARA, NORTH PAROOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH WPC NO.4766/09 -2- RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MOTOR TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND, OFFICE OF THE MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, KOLLAM. 3. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 4. TAXATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE JOINT R.T.O.T,R.T.O.OFFICE, PARAVOOR. 5. BIJU V.J. S/O.JOSE V.M. VADAKKAN, PUTHENVELLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SAJEEV N.G. S/O.N.N.GOPI, NEDIYARA HOUSE, P.O.PUTHENVELIKKARA, NORTH PARAVOOR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC FOR KMTWWF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 4766 OF 2009 (P) ==================== Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the registered owners of the vehicles covered by Exts.P1 to P10. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, petitioners 1 to 8 are driving the vehicles by themselves. In so far as petitioner Nos.9 and 10 are concerned, their vehicles are driven by their sons, who are respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 3. The contention raised in this writ petition is that petitioners 1 to 8 or respondents 5 and 6 are not members of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund administered under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme framed under the Act. It is stated that petitioners 1 to 10 or respondents 5 and 6 are not mainly depending on these vehicles for their livelihood and therefore, are not liable for registration under the Scheme. 4. It is stated that in view of the provisions contained in Section 8A of the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, unless contribution is paid and a clearance certificate is produced, motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicles will not be accepted. It is in these circumstances, the writ WPC 4766/09 :2 : petition has been filed for a declaration that the petitioners are not liable to pay the contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund as self employed persons or as employees or as employers. Consequently, they are also seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 not to insist upon the petitioners for remittance of Motor Transport Welfare Fund for accepting motor vehicle tax. 5. None of the statutory provisions, either under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act or the Scheme are under challenge. Going by the provisions contained in the Act and the Scheme, self employed persons are also liable for contribution provided they come under Section 2 (ja) of the Act. The payment of the contribution under the Welfare Fund Scheme is also a condition precedent for accepting Motor Vehicle tax and this position has been upheld by this Court in Siraj v. Regional Transport Officer (2007(3) KLT 929). 6. However, having regard to the contention of the petitioners that neither of them nor respondents 5 and 6 come within the scope of Section 2 (ja), I am of the view that this is a matter to be decided by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, I direct the 3rd respondent to issue notice to the petitioners and respondents 5 and 6, consider their objections and WPC 4766/09 :3 : decide on the question whether the petitioners or respondents 5 and 6 are liable to be covered under the scheme framed under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. 7. Petitioners may produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent, and on its receipt, notice shall be issued within 3 weeks thereafter and the enquiry shall be completed within 8 weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp