Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P, J
ARUNA TOURIST HOME – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12473 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.G. Karthikeyan
For the Respondents: Lakshmi N. Kaimal, S. Krishna Moorthy
Entities must not contribute to the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund if employees are covered under the EPF Act.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the issue of whether an establishment must contribute to the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund if its employees are covered under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The Court finds that such contributions are not required under the relevant statutes and orders the issuance of the necessary clearance certificate. The issue presented was whether the employees were indeed covered under the EPF Act. The Court reasoned that the existing judgments establishing this principle would apply in this case, ensuring necessary compliance. The writ petition is disposed of in line with existing directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employees' coverage under epf negates contribution to abkari fund. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. confirmation of employee coverage by epf. (Para 3) |
| 3. existing court directives apply. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the fact that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not issuing a clearance certificate for renewal of its FL- 3 license despite the fact that the employees of the petitioner are covered by the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that if the employees are covered by the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, the petitioner is not required to make any contribution towards the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund.
2. The learned Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not dispute the fact that if the employees of the petitioner are covered under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, they are not called upon to make any remittance towards Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation would submit that 10 employees of the petitioner are covered by the EPF scheme from October 2010 and regular contributions have been made till the month of February 2026.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Department and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of in the light of the directions issued by this Court W.P.(C) No.1926 of 2025 and connected cases, where this Court directed as follows:-
“6. Having regard to the pleadings and submissions, it is ordered that the petitioners need not pay contribution to the welfare fund if the employees are covered under the EPF Act. The Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Board shall issue necessary clearance certificate to the petitioners after ensuring that the workers under the petitioners are covered under the EPF Act.
7. It is for the petitioners to establish that the workers are covered under the EPF Act and the relevant scheme, and have made necessary contributions as per the statute. The competent authority shall accept Electronic Challan cum Return evidencing payment of the contribution. It is made clear that the clearance certificate directed to be issued is only as a requirement of the Welfare Fund Act.’’
Accordingly, the writ petition will stand disposed of, holding that the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1926 of 2025 and connected matters will apply to the petitioner also.
