High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-02-03Writ petition disposed with a direction to cons...

Smt. Rathnam v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WPC.No. 2866 of 2012 (G)

Neutral Citation:,

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. N. Ravindran
Judgment Date: 2012-02-03
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed with a direction that, upon the petitioner submitting an appropriate petition for a certificate of no due, the 3rd respondent shall consider it in light of Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O and issue the certificate within one month.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed with a direction to consider a certificate of no due within one month if the petitioner files an appropriate petition, following the Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O principle; tractor not covered by the fund in absence of hire/reward transport use written into the order as per facts stated in the judgment.wa

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Smt. Rathnam

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Govt., Transport Department, Thiruvananthapuram
Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad
Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board represented by Executive Officer, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Rajesh Vijayendran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri G. Gopakumar (Government Pleader)
• Sri K. S. Manu (Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Smt. Rathnam, owner of a tractor, seeks a declaration that her seasonal agricultural use tractor does not fall within the definition of ‘Motor Transport Undertaking’ under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985, and requests exemption from welfare fund contributions with immediate effect. The Kerala High Court analyzes the Act’s definition of Motor Transport Undertaking (section 2(h)) as an undertaking engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward, including a private carrier (section 2(i) read with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939). The Motor Vehicles Act defines Private Carrier (section 2(22)) as the owner of a transport vehicle, not a public carrier, used for carrying goods owned by him or essential for his business, not involving a transport business. The court clarifies that the liability to contribute arises only when the vehicle is used for carrying passengers or goods for hire or reward. Relying on a Division Bench decision in Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O (2009) (2) KLT 615), the court concludes the tractor’s use for agricultural purposes does not bring it within the welfare fund’s scope. The court disposes of the petition with a direction that if Rathnam files an appropriate petition for a certificate that no amount is due, the Welfare Fund Board shall consider it in light of the Rajesh decision and issue a certificate within one month.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985, s. 2(h)Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985, s. 2(i)Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 2(22) (Private Carrier)Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 42(2)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that her tractor, used only for seasonal agricultural operations, does not constitute a Motor Transport Undertaking under the 1985 Act. Relying on the interpretation in Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O, she contends that liability to contribute arises only where vehicles carry passengers or goods for hire or reward. She seeks an exemption from welfare fund contributions and requests a certificate stating no amount is due.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents oppose the exemption, arguing that the definition of Motor Transport Undertaking includes undertakings engaged in the carriage of passengers or goods by road for hire or reward, and the Kerala Welfare Fund Board has authority to collect contributions. They rely on the statutory references to Private Carrier and the relationship to the MV Act to argue that engines used in business operations could attract liability if the use aligns with the Act’s scope.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajesh v. Joint R.T.O	2009 (2) KLT 615	Positive	Cited as the controlling authority for interpreting the scope of ‘Motor Transport Undertaking’ and private carrier; used to support the proposition that only vehicles carrying passengers or goods for hire or reward fall within the Act’s ambit.
WP(C) 7373/2011	WP(C) 7373/2011, Kerala High Court	Mentioned Only	Ext.P5; a judgment included as an exhibit; referenced but not analyzed or expressly adopted in the decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Smt. Rathnam v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/14TH MAGHA, 1933** ## **WPC.No. 2866 of 2012 (G) ------------------------** **PETITIONER** ## **----------** **SMT.RATHNAM, W/O.LATE GURUSWAMI, BOYARTHOTTAM, PUDUSSERY EAST, WALAYAR DAM P.O., PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYENDRAN** **RESPONDENTS** - **-----------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001.** **2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.** **3. KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER g.GOPAKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MG** **WPC.No. 2866 of 2012 (G) ------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** |**EXT.P1:-**|**COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE**| |---|---| ||**KL-09-F-704.**| |**EXT.P2:-**|**COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT BEARING NO.P.GD**| ||**C1/2/2006/P ISSUED BY SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT**| ||**AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD.**| |**EXT.P3:-**|**COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.PDY 7/11-12/5 DATED**| ||**18.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.**| |**EXT.P4:-**|**COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12.02.2008 ISSUED BY DISTRICT**| ||**EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE**| ||**FUND BOARD.**| |**EXT.P5:-**|**COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA**| ||**DATED 09.03.2011 IN WP(C) 7373/2011.**| |**EXT.P6:-**|**COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.01.2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** **MG** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J. --------------------------W.P.(C) No. 2866 OF 2012 -------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of February, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner in this writ petition is the registered owner of a tractor which is more particularly described in Ext.P1 certificate of registration. She has filed this writ petition for a declaration that as the tractor owned by her is used for agricultural operations which are seasonal, she 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 her 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 therefore, as the petitioner uses her tractor only for agricultural purposes which are seasonal in nature, she is not liable to pay contribution to the welfare fund. 2. I heard Sri.Rajesh Vijayendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. G.Gopakumar, learned Government WPC No.2866/2012 2 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 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 WPC No.2866/2012 3 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 her tractor which is essentially used for agricultural purposes and is not used to carry goods or passengers for hire or reward is not covered by the provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction 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 her 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** (supra) 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.2866/2012 4 WPC No.2866/2012 5 WPC No.2866/2012 6 WPC No.2866/2012 7