IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 26867 of 2004(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.GANAPATHYRAMAN, DEALER, BPC RETAIL OUTLET, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. V.RAMANATHAN, DEALER, BPC RETAIL OUTLET, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. 2. COMMISSIONER OF REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUNDS PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EPF ORGANISATIONS, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN. FOR R1 SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.26867/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF the LETTER DATED 31/07/1999 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR SALES OFFICER, BPC LTD. P2 : COPY OF the NOTICE DATED 18/05/2004. P3 : COPY OF the REMITTANCE MADE TO THE ACCOUNT EPF ORGANISATION. P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/06/2004. P5 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/08/2004. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26867 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The firm by name M/s. Veeraraghava Iyer & Co. was running a petrol bunk under licence from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. When the Provident Fund Commissionerate demanded amounts towards contribution for the years 1986 to 1992, the firm challenged the same by filing original petition No.11810/1993. This Court has disposed of the original petition only on 11/06/2002 i.e. after 9 years from the date of filing the same. This Court has left open the liabilities be decided by 2nd respondent. In between one partner of the firm, who filed that original petition, died and another firm took over the business with one partner from the old firm continuing in the new firm. According to petitioners in this writ petition, the present one is a new firm which has commenced business and it has nothing to do with the previous employer. However, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents contended that firm is continuing the same business, and as such, they are liable to clear the arrears and are liable to pay the liability currently due. Details have been called for, for adjudication from 1993 onwards. The new firm is stated to be constituted in June WP(C) No.26867/2004 -2- 1999. The arrears of the old firm is stated to be paid by son of the deceased partner, who is the continuing partner in the new firm. There is nothing to indicate that on expiry of one of the partners, the retail out let was re-auctioned and given by the BPCL under a separate proceedings. Since there is no fresh recruitment for dealership, what is approved is only succession of business by the new firm with one of the continuing partner remaining in business. In the circumstances, what is required is only adjudication as visualises in the earlier judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing 2nd respondent to complete the adjudication, and if there is no liability on the previous firm, refund the amount paid by the petitioners, and if there is liability after 1992, determine the same and raise demand against petitioners. Petitioners will be given an opportunity to produce documents and records. Claim of the new firm will be separately considered with reference to number of employees available. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg