AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Antony Dominic
Petitioner is a Motor Transport undertaking. They are also an establishment governed by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that a clearance certificate from 4th respondent is demanded by respondents 1 and 2 for accepting tax due from them under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. The contention of the petitioner is that being an establishment covered under the EPF Act, they are exempted from welfare fund administered by 4th respondent and therefore, they cannot be required to produce the clearance certificate.
I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.
If an establishment is covered by the EPF Act, that establishment is exempted from Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. If that be so, such establishments cannot be required to produce any clearance certificate from 4th respondent for accepting the tax due to respondents 1 and 2. However, it is for the petitioner to produce necessary proof from the third respondent that they are a covered establishment and that up-to-date EPF dues are paid by them. In the light of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that second respondent shall accept the motor vehicle tax due from the petitioner, if petitioner produces necessary proof from the third respondent that theirs is an establishment which is covered by EPF Act and that up-to-date contribution under the Act has been paid by them in full.