IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 427 of 2004() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.10407/1999 Dated 21/08/2003 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------- 1. SHEELA THOMSON, W/O. THOMSON K. THOMAS, VALIYETHU BUNGLOW, KALAYAPURAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. 2. THOMSON K. THOMAS, VALIYETHU BUNGLOW, KALAYAPURAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER KERALA, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS, KOLLAM. 4. GOPAL G. PRASAD, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, USHAS, PARUTHIPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN R4 BY ADV.SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A. No.427 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated, the Ist day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and the Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Appellants are husband and wife, husband being the owner of the factory building and wife being the licensee who was carrying on business there. It is seen from the judgment of the learned Single Judge that factory was sold by the appellants to another person with a specific clause therein in the sale deed providing for payment of arrears of the E.P.F contribution by the appellants/transferors. The further clause in the agreement is that in the event of recovery of arrears from the transferee due to default committed by appellants, appellants will reimburse such amount to the transferee. In spite of specific clause undertaking liability, and agreeing to reimburse to the transferee, the writ petition was filed raising totally untenable contentions which were rejected by the learned Single Judge. The prayer of the appellants is to shift the liability to the WA 427/04 -:2:- transferee which is not permissible by virtue of the specific provision in the agreement though Section 17B of the Act makes transferee also liable along with transferor. The first appellant's claim for immunity from arrest on default is also found against by the learned Single Judge by referring Section 8 B(1)(b) of the Act. We find no merit in the writ appeal, consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- WA 427/04 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..