RAMESH KUMAR Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging Exs. P8, P10 and P11 demands for arrears of contribution payable under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) issued by respondents 1 to 3, Through Ext. P11 the petitioner was threatened with coercive steps for recovery, on failure of payment of balance amount of Rs. 17152.10. The issue pertains to liability for contribution to the Provident Fund, payable by the 'employer' with respect to a Cashew Factory for the period from 1/2000 to 5/2000, The order of determination is Ext. P4, According to the petitioner, by virtue of Ext. P1 lease agreement, the factory owned by him was leased out to the 4th respondent for conducting business for the period from 9.1.2000 to 31.12.2001. It is evident from Ext. P2 that the lease was accepted by the Special Officer for Cashew Industry, and the 4th respondent was recognised as the 'occupier' by way of transfer with respect to the establishment, for the relevant period.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the transfer by lease was duly intimated to the first respondent through Ext. P3. It is the case of the petitioner that during existence of the lease period, the petitioner as well as 4th respondent were, issued with Ext. P5 notice demanding payment of contribution due for the period from 1/2000 to 5/2000. The petitioner submitted Ext. P6 followed by Ext. P7 reply letters to the first respondent, clarifying that the liability is on the 4th respondent, and requesting the authorities to take effective steps for realising the amount from the 4th respondent. But through Exts. P8 and P10 letters the authorities intimated that the petitioner is also primarily responsible because he is the principal employer. Ultimately Ext.P11 notice was issued in the joint name of the petitioner and the 4th respondent demanding pay erect of the balance amount of Rs. 17152.10.

(3.) The petitioner is disputing the liability on the basis that, he was not the 'employer' with respect to the establishment for the relevant period. Counsel for the petitioner points out Section 17B of the Act in order to support his contention, which reads as follows: