IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2275 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.39803/2003 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- VICTOR OLAV FERNANDEZ, MANAGING PARTNER, URBAN STANISLAUS & COMPANY, URBAN HOUSE, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1016, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 5. P.R. SUJANAN, PANAVILA VEEDU, ASHRAMAM, KOLLAM. R1 BY SR. G.P. SRI.P.K.BABU ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R2 TO 4 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R2 TO 4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO.2256 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal Nos.2275 & 2256 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appellant IS challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that appellant and the licencee are jointly and severally liable under Section 17B of the Employees Provident Fund Act to pay the liability of the employees. We have in similar cases also held that the factory owner as well as the licencee are jointly and severally liable to pay the Provident Fund contribution under Section 17B of the Employees Provident Fund Act. It is for the appellant to claim reimbursement from the licencee and in fact, Suit filed by the appellant is stated to be pending. Writ Appeal, therefore, lack any merit and is dismissed. Appellant can approach the second respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and give a proposal and we are sure the second respondent will grant reasonable instalment facility for clearing the arrears on condition of appellant furnishing post-dated Cheques for recovering amounts on due dates of instalments granted by him. If 2 appellant gives undertaking along with post-dated Cheques, then the second respondent will direct the Recovery authorities to withhold recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears in terms of the instalment facility. Writ Appeals are dismissed, but with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms