Kerala High Court
Paragon Polymer Products Pvt.Ltd vs The Chief Executive Officer on 18 February, 2011
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5151 of 2011(T)
1. PARAGON POLYMER PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :18/02/2011
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
---------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.5151 of 2011-T
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
Contention of the petitioner company is that it is a registered establishment under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (EPF Act) and all the employees of the said establishment, including those who are employed in the operation of vehicles owned by the petitioner, are covered under the provisions of the above said Act and the Scheme formulated thereunder (EPF Scheme). As such the petitioner is eligible for exemption from the purview of the provisions contained in the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act and Scheme framed thereunder, with respect to vehicles owned by them. It is also contended that the petitioner is not liable for payment of contributions to the welfare fund.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is not accepting motor vehicle tax with respect to three of the vehicles owned by the petitioner, insisting upon production of proof regarding payment of contributions to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund.
W.P(C) No.5151 of 2011-T 2
3. The issue in question now stands covered by a decision of this Court in Hymavathi V. Special Deputy Tahsildar (2008(3) KLT 807). If the establishment of the petitioner is registered under the provisions of the EPF Act and if the employees engaged in operation of the vehicles are covered under the EPF Scheme, the petitioner could not be held liable for payment of contributions to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, is the dictum.
4. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that denial of acceptance of motor vehicles tax with respect to vehicles owned by the petitioner, insisting upon production of proof regarding payment of contributions to the welfare fund, could not be justified.
5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to accept motor vehicles tax due with respect to vehicles owned by the petitioner, provided proof regarding payment of contributions under the EPF Scheme with respect to employees of the establishment for the current period is produced.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
ab //True Copy//