GEORGE Vs. ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is engaged in blasting, crushing and sale of rock in various forms. Appellant has 24 vehicles used for transport of rubble, stone chips, etc. When appellant offered to remit motor vehicle tax, the RTO demanded clearance certificate in terms of Section 8a of Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare fund Act for accepting tax. Since appellant had not remitted any contribution towards motor transport workers welfare fund, no certificate could be obtained. Consequently, motor vehicle tax was not received by the RTO. When the appellant approached this Court challenging the action of the RTO, this Court declared that appellant was covered by the definition of "motor transport undertaking" under Section 2 (h) of the act. However, the question of claim of exemption under the proviso to Section 4 was left open for the appellant to prove before the RTO. It is against this judgment that this appeal is filed.

(2.) WE have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board. The liability to pay contribution in respect of transport workers under the Kerala Motor Transport workers Welfare Fund Act is on the transport undertaking as defined in section 2 (h) of the Act. Section 2 (h)of the Act defines "motor transport undertaking" as follows:

(3.) THE next question to be considered is appellant's claim of exemption under the proviso to Section 4 which provides for exemption to those who are otherwise liable to pay contribution for the workers, if such workers are covered by employees Provident Fund Act, Gratuity Act, etc. This is a matter to be proved before the adjudicating officer and not before this Court. In fact, learned Single judge has given freedom to the appellant to prove this fact before the RTO for receiving tax without insisting on production of certificate by the appellant from the Welfare Fund Inspector under Section 8 A of the Act. We feel that this matter has to be considered in adjudication proceedings by the Executive Officer of the welfare Fund Board and not by the RTO. Writ Appeal is therefore disposed of directing the District Executive Officer to call for proof of coverage of employees under the Employees Provident Fund Act or Gratuity Act and on being satisfied about coverage and consequent eligibility for exemption, he will issue required certificate to the appellant for production before the RTO for receiving tax. If appellant is not entitled to exemption there will be direction to the District Executive officer to complete the adjudication up-to-date and issue orders determining contribution payable under the Act including advance contribution for the appellant to make payment and on payment to issue certificate for production before the RTO for receiving tax.