Liability to pay contribution under P.F.to be that of new establishment from date of transfer.

This writ petition has been filed by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited represented by its Secretary against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

.2. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 25. 1987 and to issue direction to the first respondent and direct the first respondent to enforce the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act and the allied scheme against the second respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the Neyveli Lignite Corporation owns a guest house and it was leased out to the second respondent with effect from 10. 1983. The second respondent recruited their own personnel through agencies viz., the Self Employment Council to fill up the various posts in the Guest House. All the employees employed in the Guest House were recruited and are under the control and supervision of the second respondent. The petitioner has no connection or authority over the manner and the method of recruitment of personnel to the Guest House and to their service conditions with effect from 10. 1983. As per the terms and conditions, it is the duty of the second respondent to discharge all the statutory liabilities. During Inspection by the Provident Fund Inspector, this fact was brought to his notice. Thereupon the Provident Fund Inspector informed that N.L.C. Guest House no longer under the control and management of the petitioner with effect from 10. 1983. On 18. 1986, the Provident Fund Officer, Cuddalore addressed a letter to the second respondent and requested it to implement the scheme. The second respondent sent a reply on 9. 1986 explaining the position clearly and unambiguously that N.L.C. Guest House at Neyveli was taken over by him from 10. 1983 and none of the employees of the previous establishment was continued after 30.9.1983. They are also running the catering and house keeping of the Guest House with a afresh set of employees recruited by them. Thereupon a notice under Sec.7-A of the Act was issued on 11. 1987 and directed the petitioner to appear for personal enquiry on 2. 1987. The notice was forwarded to the second respondent with request to appear before the first respondent and comply with the directions of the first respondent. But the second respondent did not do so. The first respondent sent another letter dated 22. 1987 requesting the petitioner to instruct the management of the Guest House immediately to produce the required documents to the Provident Fund Inspector. Accordingly, the petitioner gave proper instructions to the second respondent in this regard. While so, the impugned order dated 25. 1987 was served to the petitioner on 6. 1987 demanding a sum of Rs.42,230.45 by way of employees and employers contribution under Employees Provident Fund and Allied Schemes framed thereunder, within a period of 30 days.

.4. The petitioner further states in the affidavit that on 2. 1987, the Secretary of the Self Employment Council appeared before the first respondent and presented a petition claiming that infancy protection of five years from the date of take over of the establishment that is from 10. 1983. This plea has been rejected. The first respondent has held the petitioner liable under the impugned order. He also threatens penal action under Sec.14-B of the Act. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. In the counter it is stated that the Guest House was under the control and management of the petitioner. In view of the continued default, the Enforcement Officer, Cuddalore attached to the respondent’s office, addressed a letter to the petitioner urging to comply with the provisions of the Act. The counter says that the petitioner is the principal employer. Hence, duty is cast upon the employer to comply with statutory provisions not only in respect of employees who are employed directly but also in respect of their employees who are employed thro