Santhosh vs The Chief Executive Officer, Motor Workers Welfare Fund Board, The District Executive Officer, Motor Workers Welfare Fund Board and The Joint Regional Transport Officer

A.M. Shaffique, J.—The petitioner owns a tempo traveller and when attempt was made for remitting the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund under the Scheme formulated for the same, he was told that he should remit a some of Rs. 700/- for two employees in terms of Table I of the Scheme. According to the petitioner, the vehicle being a tempo traveller, the obligation to pay the welfare fund is only for one employee and the quantum is only Rs. 100/- as per Table III. The respondent has filed a statement stating that since the vehicle is a contract carriage, though being a tempo traveller, it is liable to pay welfare fund @ Rs. 700 per employee and that too for two employees and hence the authorities concerned were justified in making a demand. The relevant provision which deals with liability to pay contribution to the fund is Clause 28(1) which reads as under:

28.(1) Every employer or self-employed person of a motor transport undertaken shall contribute to the Fund in respect of his undertaking an amount of quantum for each type of vehicles, shown in the Table-I, Table-II, Table-III and Table-IV below, every month, as employer''s contribution taking into account the average minimum number of employees fixed for each vehicle.

Four specific Tables are mentioned in the said clause and the categorization of the Table 1 to IV is depending upon the category of the Motor Transport. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is not in dispute that the tempo traveller which is used for carriage of persons hired for was also a contract carriage. But nevertheless if we look at the classification made in the Scheme, when a specific provision is made categorizing tempo traveller in Table III, I am of the view that when a specific provision is made under the Table, the liability to pay contribution is only on the basis of Table III. Under these circumstances, the demand now made by the respondent authority treating tempo traveller as a contract carriage under Table I is erroneous. Hence, it is declared that the petitioner is liable to pay contribution in respect of the aforesaid Scheme only at Rs. 100/- and that too on the basis of Table III. This is Ext.P4 issued in favour of another person by the Chief Executive Officer also confirms the above position.

That being the situation, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

It is declared that the liability of the petitioner is only to pay the contribution for one employee in respect of tempo traveller @ Rs. 100/- alone in terms of Table III of clause 28(1) of the Scheme aforesaid.