Allowed

Manoj.v.Jose v. Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC6 Nov 2012WP(C)/2712/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a certificate stating that no clearance certificate under the Kerala Motor Transport Welfare Fund Act is required for the petitioner's establishment, as the petitioner is covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent was directed to issue a certificate stating that no clearance is required for the petitioner's establishment under the Kerala Motor Transport Welfare Fund Act.

Manoj.v.Jose Vs Asst.Provident Fund… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/15TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2712 of 2011 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANOJ V.JOSE, PROPRIETOR, PRESIDENCY TOURS AND TRAVELS, ALUVA. BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KALOOR, PIN-682 017.

¶10

2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

¶11

KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,

¶12

ERNAKULAM, PALARIVATTOM, PIN-682 017.

¶13

3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

¶14

(REGISTERING AUTHORITY), ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD BY SRI.MADHU BAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 2712 of 2011 (L)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER SHOWING THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT IS COVERED BY THE PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME DATED 5/4/2006.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN ALONG WITH THE CONTRIBUTION IN RESPECT OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010 DATED 31/3/2010.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 3/12/2010 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC.NO.8798/2006 DATED 29/3/2006.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF KL-07/AD 906.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF KL-07/J 8962.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF KL-07/AP 9191.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF KL-41/A 528.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF KL-41/A 510.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF KL-07/AC 4759.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2012

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner claims the benefit under the proviso to S.4(1) of the Kerala Motor Transport Welfare Fund Act. Section 4(1) of the said Act indicates the obligation of the employer to pay the contribution. However, such provision will not be applicable to employers covered by the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The writ petition is filed for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to issue certificate certifying that for the purpose of transfer as well as remittance of tax in respect of vehicles purchased from the petitioner's establishment, no such clearance certificate is required under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act.

¶32

In view of the admitted position that the petitioner is covered as seen from Ext.P1, under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the writ petition is only to be allowed and there shall be a direction that no clearance is required for the establishment of the petitioner and

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 2712 of 2011 - L

¶34

¶35

the 2^nd respondent shall issue necessary certificate in that

¶36

regard.

¶37

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶38

rka

Manoj.v.Jose v. Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj.v.Jose v. Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.K. Kunjamma Vs A.E. Jacob

Jalaludheen Vs the District Collector,Tvm

George Paulose Vs Corporation Bank

Brite Power Launders and House Keeping Vs the Regional Transport Officer Ernakulam

Susamma Vs Senior Geologist

E.M.Abdul Khader Vs Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner