Victor Olav Fernandez vs State Of Kerala on 14 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2275 of 2006()


1. VICTOR OLAV FERNANDEZ,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL PROVIDENT

3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND

4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :14/12/2009

 O R D E R
                     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