Disposed

Suresh U.M.. v. the District Executive Officer

Kerala HC11 Feb 2020WP(C)/3215/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board's refusal to accept Welfare Fund contributions from a petitioner who purchased a vehicle in Karnataka. The court directed the Board to provisionally accept payments and issue a provisional clearance certificate while enquiring into the vehicle's prior registration status.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st respondent to provisionally receive contribution and issue a provisional clearance certificate, and to investigate the vehicle's prior registration status within four weeks.

Suresh U.M.. Vs the District Executive Officer — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.3215 OF 2020(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURESH U.M., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN U., UNITHIRI HOUSE, AKKODI LANE, MULANGUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, COLLECTORATE P.O., AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY/ REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, COLLECTORATE P.O., AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI K.S MANU, SC, SMT POOJA SURENDRAN, GP.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.3215 OF 2020(B)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner herein is the holder of a stage carriage permit on the route Palakkad-Ayyanthole and he has been conducting the service using a stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-13-P-7333. According to the petitioner, he has paid the welfare fund contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 and there are no dues.

¶19

While so, he purchased a vehicle from the State of Karnataka and it was registered in the State of Kerala on 26.12.2019 and is bearing Reg. No. KL-35-J-9660. The petitioner substituted the new vehicle for the old vehicle which is evident from Ext.P1 permit. He then approached the 1^st respondent for inclusion of the said vehicle under the Welfare Fund Scheme. However, the 1^st respondent is alleged to have refused his request and is said to have insisted that the petitioner should either produce a clearance certificate from the State of Karnataka or effect payment of contribution from the date of initial registration. According to the petitioner, there is no justification on the part of the 1^st respondent in insisting upon a clearance certificate as there is no similar

¶20

WP(C).No.3215 OF 2020(B)

¶21

¶22

enactment in the State of Karnataka.

¶23

Heard Sri.K.S.Manu, the learned Standing counsel and Miss Pooja Raveendran, the learned Government Pleader.

¶24

If the vehicle had been registered in the State of Karnataka before being re registered in the State, then there is no justification on the part of the 1^st respondent in refusing to issue clearance certificate.

¶25

Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the bar, I direct the 1^st respondent to provisionally receive the contribution towards Welfare Fund from the petitioner from 26.12.2019, being the date of purchase of the vehicle and issue a provisional clearance certificate. The petitioner shall thereafter produce the provisional clearance certificate before the 2^nd respondent, who shall permit him to pay motor vehicle tax. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent shall consider Ext.P4 submitted by the petitioner and enquire as to whether the vehicle purchased by the petitioner and re-registered as KL-35-J-9660 was earlier registered in the State of Karnataka, thus exempting the petitioner from making any contribution towards the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board. If the decision is in the affirmative, the provisional clearance certificate shall be made

¶26

WP(C).No.3215 OF 2020(B)

¶27

¶28

absolute. The decision on Ext.P4 shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of issuance of the provisional clearance certificate.

¶29

This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J JUDGE

¶31

¶32

WP(C).No.3215 OF 2020(B)

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶37

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RC PARTICULARS OF KL35 J 9660. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT OF KL-35 J 9660. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 30/01/2020.

Suresh U.M.. v. the District Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh U.M.. v. the District Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant Executive Engineer,, Vs Sam C.K.

Asgar Vs P. S. Viswambharan

Santhosh K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Forza Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Labour Officer

Shamseer Peecham Veettil, Vs the District Executive Officer