JUDGMENT The petitioner were the employees of respondent No. 3 (The Rajkumar Mills Ltd.) and were covered by the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. They retired from the service on 4th March, 1986, 17th August 1992 and 1st May, 1994 respectively. The respondents No. 1 and 2 did not make full payment of Provident Fund to the petitioners despite notice dated 4.6.94 (Annex. A) as result of which the petitioners have approached this Court in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ against the respondents No. 1 and 2 for payment of the balance amount of the Provident Fund. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the return in oppugnation. I have heard counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondents No. 1 and 2 are under legal obligation to pay the petitioners the entire amount due to them including employers contribution irrespective of the position whether the amount could or could not be realised from the respondent No. 3 (employer). The counsel has placed reliance on the order dated 1.9.94 passed by this Court in M.P. No. 624/92 (Prabhudayal v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner). The counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted that the respondents did their best to realise the amount and initiated action about prosecution of the employer and on such acts, the respondents should be held to be immune from payment of liability of the amount of the Provident Fund. He also submitted that the petitioner No. 3 has not even applied for payment of Provident Fund. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the matter stands concluded by the order of this Court passed in M.P. No. 624/92. In view of the aforesaid order, no fresh point is involved for adjudication in this writ petition. In the order passed in M.P. No. 624/92 it is held as under : "In my view, the respondent cannot shirk the responsibility to make payment. The responsibility is total and absolute. It is not liable to be evaded on the plea of actions. After all punishment to employer brings no benefit to the employees so far as the payment of provident Fund is concerned. The timely check and action could have averted a situation like this. The responsibility is total and absolute. It is not liable to be evaded on the plea of actions. After all punishment to employer brings no benefit to the employees so far as the payment of provident Fund is concerned. The timely check and action could have averted a situation like this. Delayed action is no answer to the question posed before me." Following the aforesaid order, I allow this petition and direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay to the petitioners the entire amount due to them including the employers contribution which could not or has not been realised by the respondents from the employer. I further direct that the payment shall be made to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 within a period of three months from today and payment to petitioner No. 3 shall be made within a period of three months from the presentation of the appropriate application by him in this behalf. The petition is, thus, allowed in terms indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs of this petition as incurred.