IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9972 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.ABDUL HAKKIM, PROPRIETOR, ARABIAN CASHEW EXPORTERS, KILIKOLLOOR P.O.KOLLAM-4. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, MANNANIA COMPLEX, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-1. 2. ISMAIL KUNJU, MANPARA HOUSE, MARU SAUH, ALUMKADAVU, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 3. ABDUL KHADER, PUNNAVILA VEEDU, (THUNDIL VEEDU), PALLISSERICKAL P.O, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 9972 of 2008(K) ======================= Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an employer who is sought to be proceeded against for recovery of contributions under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in his capacity as a transferee of the establishment. Before the 1st respondent, petitioner raised a contention that the respondents 2 and 3 are the persons liable for contributions for the period in question. Therefore, the 1st respondent issued notice to respondents 2 and 3. However, they did not respond to the notice. On that ground the 1st respondent decided to proceed against the petitioner alone. Petitioner submits that this is irregular in so far as the 1st respondent has a duty to proceed against respondents 2 and 3 also by invoking provisions under the Act and Rules for enforcing their attendance. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: "i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent not to proceed against the petitioner for determination of arrears in respect of establishment bearing Code No.KR/22029 for the period prior to 26.10.2006. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to proceed against the respondents 2 and 3 for determination of arrears prior to 26.10.2006; W.P.(C) No. 9972/2008/K -2- iii) Declare that the respondents 2 & 3 alone are liable for payment of arrears of contribution for the period prior to 26.10.2006, being the employer at that time; iv) direct the 1st respondent not to proceed against the petitioner for determination of arrears in respect of establishment bearing Code No.KR/22029, for the period prior to 26.10.2006; AND v) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the circumstances of this case." 2. The learned standing counsel appears and submits that the petitioner is also liable as a transferee and therefore there is nothing wrong in proceeding against the petitioner alone. I am of the opinion that since the petitioner has pointed out that the respondents 2 and 3 are liable for the payment of contributions for the relevant period, it was the duty of the 1st respondent to complete 7A proceedings after enforcing attendance of respondents 2 and 3, by invoking the provisions in the Act and Rules. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action against respondents 2 and 3 for enforcing their attendance in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp