IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12570 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. JORDY GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, MYLADOORPOOPPAKATTIL,THATTARATHUTTA PO, KARINKUNNAM, THODUPUZHA. 2. RUBY ABRAHAM, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. ABRAHAM, NEDUMKALLAL HOUSE, EDAVETTY P.O., KARIKODE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR AND REHABILITATION, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-1. 2. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. ENGFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, ADIMALY, IDUKKI. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAVETTY, THODUPUZHA TALUK. WP(C).No. 12570 of 2008 6. ABDUL RAZAKE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. KHADA, KALLUMPURATHU HOUSE, KARIKODE, THODUPUZHA. 7. JAMEELA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL RAZAKE, KALLUMPURATHU HOUSE, KARIKODE, THODUPUZHA. 8. SHAKKEER, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAZAKE, KALLUMPURATHU HOUSE, KARIKODE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA SRI. PARAMESWARAN NAIR – ASST. SOLICITOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.12570 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners have purchased certain properties allegedly from respondents 6 to 8. They are now aggrieved by action of respondents 2 to 4 in proceeding against the properties they purchased for recovery of amounts due under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act from the seller of the properties. The petitioners’ contention is that they have not purchased the establishment itself, in which contingency alone they would become liable under Section 17B of the Act. They would submit that they have purchased only the properties in which the 6th respondent was earlier conducting business, in respect of which only the demands for contributions have been made. They would further submit that, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the properties, they have purchased, are unsustainable. They would also submit that other properties purchased by them which did not belong to the original establishment also have been proceeded against. W.P.(c)No.12570/08 2 2. It is a moot point as to whether even if the establishment itself has not been purchased the transferee would be liable to make contributions due, in view of the Section 17B of the Act. But under Section 11(2) of the Act, all assets of the establishment against whom an order for recovery of contributions have been made is liable to be proceeded against, because under that Section there is a charge on all assets of the establishment at the date of making that order. Therefore the mere fact that the petitioners purchased the properties, without notice of that charge, would not absolve the property from being proceeded against. However, the proceedings shall only be against the assets of the establishment against which the order under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act has been passed, as on the date of passing the order. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the above observations. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.12570/08 3