K V HYMAVATHI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue that arises for decision in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as to whether an employer who gets voluntarily covered as an establishment under Section 1(4) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the EPF Act") is exempted from paying contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 ("Welfare Fund Act", for short), by virtue of the proviso to Section 4(1) of that Act.

(2.) The factual matrix on which this issue is raised is that petitioner, an individual, namely, K.V. Hymavathi and M. Balakrishnan and K.V. Devaki, who own three different stage carriages, applied for being covered under Section 1(4) of the EPF Act on the basis of a joint application dt.23-1-2002 from the employees and the consent letter issued by the aforesaid persons. With effect from 1-1-2002 Code No. KR/KNR/18135 is allotted to the said establishment awaiting statutory notification by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner in terms of Section 1(4) of the EPF Act. This fact is evidenced by Ext.P2. Ext.P4 evidences that the writ petitioner, K.V. Hymavathi owns vehicle No. KL-10C 1591. She employs three persons. Vehicles, KL-13J 3563 and KL-13A 1081 belong respectively to M. Balakrishnan and K.V. Devaki, who employed four persons each. This is evidenced by Ext.P4 certificate. Thus, three different owners of three different vehicles with three different sets of employees are brought under the cover of the EPF Act, by recourse to Section 1(4) thereof, on the consent of the said employers and employees and by calling the aforesaid activity as a single establishment.

(3.) Until the aforesaid exercise was undertaken under the EPF Act, the petitioner remitted contributions under the Welfare Fund Act upto December, 2001. Ext.P4 evidences that from January, 2002, the compliance position of the establishment upto 4/05 is satisfactory under the EPF Act. On the strength of the fact that the establishment is so brought under the cover of the EPF Act, voluntarily, the petitioner impeaches Ext.P5 revenue recovery proceedings initiated for default of remittances due under the Welfare Fund Act. The plea of the petitioner is that having been covered under the EPF Act, the petitioner is not liable to make any payment under the Welfare Fund Act.