Jagadeesan K S/O Late Krishnan v. The Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad; State of Kerala; Kerala Motor Transport Welfare Fund Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/28TH POUSHA 1933 WPC.No. 1370 of 2012 (U) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------- JAGADEESAN K S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, POKKATH HOUSE, KALAPETTY P.O. COYALMANNAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS.SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.B.SHAMEERA SRI.T.T.SUDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. KERALA MOTOR TRANSORT WELFASRE FUND BOARD REP.BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PALAKKAD-678 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.S.MANU, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **W.P.(C) No. 1370/2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-09-F-3304** - **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT NO.P.Gd 49/1770/2009 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD** - **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.12.2011 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE CITATION IN REJESH VS. JOINT RTO (2009) (2) KHC 611 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) No. 7411/2011(B) ON 9.3.2011 IN K.SELVARAJ VS. RTO** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** vps ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J.** ## **--------------------------W.P.(C) No. 1370 OF 2012 -------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner in this writ petition is a registered owner of a tractor which is more particularly described in Ext.P1 certificate of registration. He has filed this writ petition for a declaration that as the tractor owned by him is used for agricultural operations which are seasonal, he would not come within the scope of the expression “ _Motor Transport Undertaking_ ” as defined in section 2(h) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to exempt him from making payment of contribution to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund with immediate effect. The petitioner relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O** (2009 (2) KLT 615) to contend for the position that only vehicle owners operating vehicles which carry passengers or goods or both for hire or reward fall within the definition of the term “ _Motor Transport Undertaking”_ , and WPC No.1370/2012 2 therefore, as the petitioner use his tractor only for agricultural purposes which are seasonal in nature, he is not liable to pay contribution to the welfare fund. 2. I heard Sri.H.Badruddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. G.Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.K.S.Manu, learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent. The vehicle owned by the petitioner is a tractor. The term “M _otor Transport Undertaking_ ” is defined in section 2(h) of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 to mean a motor transport undertaking engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward, and includes a private carrier. The term “P _rivate Carrier_ ” is not defined in the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985. Section 2(i) of the Act however states that the words and expressions used but not defined in the Act but defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in that Act. The term “P _rivate Carrier_ ” is defined in section 2(22) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to mean the owner of a transport vehicle WPC No.1370/2012 3 other than a public carrier who uses that vehicle solely for the carriage of goods which are his property or the carriage of which is necessary for the purposes of his business not being a business of providing transport, or who uses the vehicle for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2) of section 42. 3. From the definition of the terms “M _otor Transport Undertaking_ ” and “P _rivate Carrier_ ”, it is clear that the liability to pay contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund is only on vehicle owners operating vehicles for carrying passengers or goods or both, for hire or reward. In other words, as held by the Division of this Court in **Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O** (supra) only those employees who are engaged in goods vehicles or passenger vehicles are covered by the provisions of the Act. It has therefore to be necessarily held that the driver engaged by the petitioner to operate his tractor which is essentially used for agricultural purposes and is not used to carry goods or passengers for hire or reward is covered by the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of WPC No.1370/2012 4 directing that in the event of the petitioner submitting an appropriate petition before the third respondent for a certificate to the effect that no amount is due from him by way of contribution to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, the said authority shall consider the same in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in **Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O** (2009 (2) KLT 615) and issue a certificate to that effect expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of the application. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps WPC No.1370/2012 5 WPC No.1370/2012 6