A transferee of an establishment is not entitled to a hearing under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for dues incurred prior to the transfer.

( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order dated May 2, 1988 passed in Matter No. 2206 of 1987 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Babulal Jain, J. discharging the rule and vacating the interim orders.

( 2 ) IN their writ petition before the trial Judge the writ petitioner alleged that the petitioner No. 1 purchased Bundapani Tea Estate from Ramjhore Tea Estate and all the right, title and interest of the said Tea Estate Co. Ltd. vested in petitioner No. 1 with effect from January 1, 1975. Since then the petitioner No. 1 has been running the said Tea Estate. The petitioner No. 1 received a notice dated March 18, 1986 from respondent No. 1, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why damages are not to be levied for default in payment of the dues to the provident fund for the month of September, 1968 to November 1968, March 1970 to January 1973 and May 1973 to February 1974. The said notice is under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (which term will be referred to hereinafter as the Act ).

( 3 ) THE notice and or letter has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure B. The Manager of the petitioner No. 1 by a letter dated March 31, 1986 informed the respondent No. 1 that the matter relates to pre-purchase period and the present management of the petitioner No. 1 was in no way responsible for such payment of dues so all correspondences regarding the same should be made, with M/s. Ramjohre Tea Estate Co. Ltd. at 36a Metcalf Street, Calcutta.

( 4 ) THE Respondent No. 1 by its letter dated April 10, 1986 indicated to the petitioner No. 1 that as under Section 17b of the Act the employer and any person to whom the establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the contribution and other sums due from the employer under the provision of the Act or the scheme as the case may be in respect of the period up to date of such transfer, the petitioner No. 1 was requested to appear before that authority on April 17, 1986. The said letter is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure C. Thereafter the hearing was adjourned from time to time.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner No. 1 received a letter and/or notice from respondent No. 2 dated September 3, 1986 intimating that under Section 17b of the Act the liability to pay the amount of damages is with person to whom the establishment is transferred. Accordingly, the damages as may be levied under Section 14b are to be paid by the petitioner No. 1.

( 6 ) IN the writ petition the petitioner prayed for writ of mandamus for a command upon the respondents to withdraw cancel and or to set aside the said notice dated March 18, 1986 issued by the respondent No. 1 and the letter dated September 3, 1986 issued by the respondent No. 2.

( 7 ) A rule was issued upon the writ application. The trial Judge while discharging the rule and vacating the interim orders by his judgment and order dated May 22, 1988 inter alia observed:"in my opinion, the liability under Section 14-B of the said Act is covered within the meaning of the expression other sums due from the employer under any provisions of this Act" as used in Section 17-B of the said Act. By virtue of the said Section the petitioner No. 1 as jointly as well as severally liable along with his seller and the Provident Fund Commissioner had the option to proceed against both or either of them. It is for the petitioners to find out as to whether the petitioner No. 1 had obtained any indemnity from his seller as against such liabilities arising to the petitioner No. 1 for any periods prior to the date of the purchase. That matter as between the petitioner No. 1 and its sellers is to be governed by the terms of the contract of purchase and/or its interpretation. So far as the Provident Fund Authorities are concerned by virtue of the said Section 17-B they are at lib