DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

1. Appellant Kunjeli Mathew filed W.P.(C) No. 9931 of 2006: she maintained that she had no obligation to pay any provident fund dues, for she leased out the cashew factory-initially owned by her husband, since deceased-to S. Mujib Rehuman and Suhrabeevi (the 3rd and the 4th respondents). She contended that any statutory liability, including that of provident fund, should be attributable to those lessees or transferees. So, she assailed the statutory demand made by the Enforcement Officer (the 1st respondent) and the Recovery Officer (the 2nd respondent) of the Employees Provident Fund Department (EPF Department). Unimpressed by Mrs. Mathew's assertions, a learned Single Judge, through a judgment dated 13.08.2013, dismissed the writ petition. Further aggrieved, Mrs. Mathew is before us.

2. Briefly stated, Mrs. Mathew's husband owned a cashew factory-Rajan Cashew Factory. After his death in 1991, Mrs. Mathew, his widow, could not run it. Accordingly, through Exts.P1 and P2 lease agreements, she transferred the management, first, to Mujib Rehuman for the years 1993-1994; later, in 1995, to Suhrabeevi. In fact, Suhrabeevi changed the factory's name to Siraj Cashew Factory and carried on with the management.

3. In course of time, because of the provident fund arrears accumulated during the period when the Factory had been under the management of respondents 3 and 4, the EPF authorities issued Exts.P7 and P9 demand notices to Mrs. Mathew. This is despite her submitting Ext.P8 explanation informing the authorities that by the time she transferred the factory management, there had been no dues. She also informed the authorities that the dues, now demanded, were incurred only by the lessees. But, the authorities persisted with the demand.

4. As seen from the impugned judgment, the principal reason that weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the appellant could not file any material before this Court in the writ petition to establish that she had transferred the Management. In fact, Exts.P1 and P2 are the lease agreements, which have been on record.

5. Even the impugned demand notices issued by the Department i.e., Exts.P7 and P9, amply establish that the Department had been in the know of the transfer effected by Mrs. Mathew. The very demand notice records the name of the factory as had been changed by one of the lessees. Further examined, the demand notices reveal that the authorities, while interpreting Section 17B of the EPF & MP Act ('the Act'), had been swayed by the observation that the liability is "joint and several."

6. In the above factual background, Sri Alex Varghese, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that a holistic reading of Section 17B of the Act amply establishes that the owner's liability is coterminous with her having the ownership or management of the establishment. Once the establishment has been transferred, she ceases to have any control, so any liability.

7. In elaboration of his submissions, he has also submitted that after the transfer of the management, it is the lessee that has to pay the statutory dues, including any contribution towards provident fund. Despite the Department's knowing the fact that Mrs. Mathew had nothing to do with the establishment, they have persisted with fastening the liability on her. To support his contentions, Sri Alex Varghese has placed reliance on Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, 1998 (2) LLJ 977, Annie Thomas v. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, 2004(3) KLT SN 99 (Case No. 4), and K.C. Thomas v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 1997(2) ILR 453.

8. Sri Alex Varghese has also drawn our attention to an analogous provision in the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948: Section 93A.

9. Heard Sri Alex Varghese, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, apart from perusing the record.

10.