Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

P.Unnikrishnan Nair vs The Joint Regional Transport Officer on 2 November, 2010

Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim

Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33234 of 2010(D)


1. P.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, CHAMPAKARA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND

4. THE KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :02/11/2010

 O R D E R
                     C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
                  W.P.(C) No. 33234 of 2010
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
         Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

Direction sought for in this writ petition is for acceptance of Motor Vehicles Tax, without insisting for production of proof regarding payment of contribution to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act.

2. According to the petitioner, the establishment, under which the petitioner is conducting stage carriage operation is covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) and the petitioner was paying contributions to the Scheme formulated thereunder. Therefore, the contention is that, the petitioner is exempted from the purview of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act and that he is not liable to pay contribution to the Scheme under that Act.

2. Ext.P1 is the copy of chalan evidencing payment of contributions to the EPF Act, with respect to employees W.P.(C) No. 33234/2010 2 engaged by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent had conceded that if the establishment of the petitioner is covered under the provisions of the EPF Act, he may not be liable for payment of contributions to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund. The legal position in this regard stands settled by this time, through decisions of this Court.

4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to accept Motor Vehicles Tax with respect to vehicles of the petitioner's establishment, without insisting for production of proof regarding payment of contributions to the Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund, provided the petitioner produces proof regarding payment of contribution to the EPF Scheme.

C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

mn.