( 1 ) THESE two matters have since been referred to this larger Bench on the basis of an order dated 14th November, 2003 passed in WP 16037 (w) of 2003. The learned single Judge differed with the decisions of this Court passed in three other matters by three other learned single Judges respectively. The learned Fourth Judge, therefore, was of the opinion that a larger Bench should be constituted. On the other hand an appeal was taken against the Judgment dated 21st March 2003 passed by one of the learned single Judge in CR No. 11160{w) of 1984. This appeal was being heard by a Division Bench consisting of one of us (D. K. Seth, J.) and Hon'ble R. N. Sinha, J. On 19th july, 2004 Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondent, brought to the notice of the said Division Bench that identical point had since been referred to a larger bench. Therefore by an order dated 19th July 2004 the matter was released from being heard in part by the said Division Bench directing the matter to be placed along with the other matters before the larger bench. Accordingly these two matters have since been referred to the larger bench now constituted by the present complements.

( 2 ) MR. Sengupta appearing on behalf of the appellant in Dalagaon agro Industries Ltd. raised a very interesting question with regard to the liability of a transferee of an establishment in relation to damages contemplated under section 14b of the Employees Provident Fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (1952 Act) in respect of defaults committed by the transferor/employer before the date of transfer in view of the expressions used in section 17b of that Act imposing joint liability upon both the transferor and the transferee. In other words Mr. Sengupata wanted us to define the extent of the liability under the fiction created by section 17b. 2. 1. In Pratya Nivesh (P) Ltd. similar question was raised namely as to whether a transferee would be liable under section 14b in respect of the defaults committed by the transferor employer prior to the transfer of the establishment to the transferee.

( 3 ) IN both the cases the respective establishment was transferred pursuant to certain agreement which includes a condition that the transferee shall not be liable for any dues under the 1952 Act in respect of the period prior to the date of transfer arising after the date of transfer not known or 'detennined on the date when the transfer was effected. However all other known dues were either paid by the transferor or the transferee or were so adjusted within the consideration of the transfer. After such transfer, notices under section 14b were since issued upon the transferee.

( 4 ) MR. Sengupta contended that on transfer, whether voluntary or non-voluntary under a Scheme framed by the Court, the liability of the transferee is confined to the scope envisaged under section 17b. According to him the expression 'amount due' mentioned in section 7a does not include damages/penalty for default contemplated under section 14b prior to the transfer in view of section 17b, by reason of the fact that the expression used in section 7a has since been bodily lifted to section 17b without reference to the expression in relation to imposition of damages/penalty referred to in section 14b. Inasmuch as, the scope of section 7a is distinct and different from the scope of section 14b. The authority competent or having jurisdiction to determine the question relating to section 7a are different from the authority competent to deal with the question in relation to section 14b which uses expression different from those used in section 7a. 1. He next contended that the transferee cannot be asked to explain the default committed by the transferor, the reason whereof the transferee cannot be expected to know. Therefore the purpose of giving hearing under section 14b incorporating the principles of audi alteram partem would be a futile exercise if the transferee is