Judgment: The petitioner is challenging Exs.P8, P10 and P11 demands for arrears of contribution payable under the provisions of the Employees provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) issued by respondents 1 to 3. Through Ext.P11 the petitioner was threatened with coercive steps for recovery, on failure of payment of balance amount of Rs.171510. The issue pertains to liability for contribution to the Provident Fund, payable by the ‘employer’ with respect to a Cashew Factory for the period from 1/2000 to 5/2000. The order of determination is Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, by virtue of Ext.P1 lease agreement, the factory owned by him was leased out to the 4th respondent or conducting business for the period from 9.1.2000 to 312.2001. It is evident from Ext.P2 that the lease was accepted by the Special Officer for Cashew Industry, and the 4th respondent was recognized as the ‘occupier’ by way of transfer with respect to the establishment, for the relevant period. 2. According to the petitioner, the transfer by lease was duly intimated to the first respondent through Ext.P3. It is the case of the petitioner that during existence of the lease period, the petitioner as well as 4th respondent were issued with Ext.P5 notice demanding payment of contribution due for the period from 1/2000 to 5/2000. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 followed by Ext.P7 reply letters to the first respondent, clarifying that the liability is on the 4th respondent, and requesting the authorities to take effective steps for realizing the amount from the 4th respondent. But through Exts.P8 and p10 letters the authorities intimated that the petitioner is also primarily responsible because he is the principal employer. Ultimately Ext.P11 notice was issued in the joint name of the petitioner and the 4th respondent demanding payment of the balance amount of Rs.17152.10 3. The petitioner is disputing the liability on the basis that, he was not the ‘employer’ with respect to the establishment for the relevant period. Ultimately Ext.P11 notice was issued in the joint name of the petitioner and the 4th respondent demanding payment of the balance amount of Rs.17152.10 3. The petitioner is disputing the liability on the basis that, he was not the ‘employer’ with respect to the establishment for the relevant period. Counsel for the petitioner points out Section 17B of the Act in order to support his contention, which reads as follows:- “17B Liability in case of transfer of establishment.- where an employer, in relation to an establishment, transfer that establishment in whole or in part, by sale, gift, lease or licence or in any other manner whatsoever, the employer and the 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 any provision of this Act or the Scheme or the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be, in respect of the period up to the date of such transfer. Provided that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer.” 4. By virtue of section 17B the transferee of an establishment is made liable for payment of amounts due with respect to the period up to the date of such transfer also, apart from his continuing liability for payment of contributions due for the period under which he is conducting business on the strength of transfer. In this case, admittedly the arrears pertain to the period from 1/2000 to 5/2000. From the records produced it is clear that during the said period the establishment was run under lease by the 4th respondent. Therefore, there is no difficulty in accepting the proposition that the liability as ‘employer’ with respect to the period, is upon the 4th respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the decision of a Division Bench of this court, Annie Thomas vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (2004 (3) KLT SN3 (case No.4). Interpreting section 17B it is observed as follows:- “It necessarily follows that for the period after the date of transfer, it is the transferee alone who has to bear the burden of paying the contribution.” 5. Inthe instant case the period in dispute is after the date of transfer. Interpreting section 17B it is observed as follows:- “It necessarily follows that for the period after the date of transfer, it is the transferee alone who has to bear the burden of paying the contribution.” 5. Inthe instant case the period in dispute is after the date of transfer. In full agreement with the decision in Annie Thomas (cited supra) I have no hesitation to hold that the 4th respondent alone is liable to pay the amount determined by the Commissioner under section 7A of the Act, as ‘employer’ for the relevant period, and that the petitioner cannot be categorized as ‘employer’ liable for payment of contributions for the said period. 6. But the learned Standing Counsel contended the writ petition pointing out that, even though the petitioner may not be liable as ‘employer’, the ‘establishment’, which is in his ownership and possession after the expiry of the lease period, will be liable to be proceeded against for recovery of the arrears due. According to him, the contribution amounts in arrears due. According to him, the contribution amounts in arrears, is liable to be recovered from the “establishment” as well as from the “employer”. In this regard my attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 8 which prescribes the “mode of recovery of moneys due from the employers” and Section 8B which pertains to “issue of certificate to the Recovery Officer.” Sections 8 and 8B reads as follows:- “8. In this regard my attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 8 which prescribes the “mode of recovery of moneys due from the employers” and Section 8B which pertains to “issue of certificate to the Recovery Officer.” Sections 8 and 8B reads as follows:- “8. Mode of recovery of moneys due from employers.- Any amount due (a) from the employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or the Insurance Scheme applies in respect of any contribution payable to the fund or as the case may be, the Insurance Fund, damages recoverable under section 14B, accumulations required to be transferred under sub section (2) of section 15 or under sub section (5) of section 17 or any charges payable by him under any other provision of this Act or of any provision of the scheme or the Insurance scheme or (b) from the employer in relation to an exempted establishment in respect of any damages recoverable under section 14B or any charges payable by him to the appropriate Government under any provision of this Act or under any of the condition specified under section 17 or in respect of the contribution payable by him towards the pension scheme under the said section 17, may, if the amount is in arrear, be recovered by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorized by him, by notification in the Official Gazette, in this behalf in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. 8B. Issue of certificate to the Recovery Officer:-(1) Where any amount is in arrear under section 8, the authorized officer may issue, to the Recovery Officer, a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears and the Recovery Officer, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover the amount specified therein from the establishment or as the case may be, the employer by one or more of the modes mentioned below: (a) attachment andsale of the movable or immovable property of the establishment or as the case may be, the employer. (b) arrest of the employer and his detention in prison. (c)appointing a receiver for the management of the movable or immovable properties of the establishment or as the case may be, the employer.” 7. (b) arrest of the employer and his detention in prison. (c)appointing a receiver for the management of the movable or immovable properties of the establishment or as the case may be, the employer.” 7. On a perusal of Section 8B, it is clear that on receipt of a certificate of recovery, the recovery officer is bound to proceed against the establishment or as the case may be, the employer by one or more of the modes mentioned therein. (emphasis supplied). The modes mentioned for recovery under Section 8B are: (a) by attachment and sale of the movable or immovable property of the establishment or as the case may be, the employer. (b) by arrest of the employer and his detention in prison and (c) by appointing a receiver for the management of the properties of the establishment. It is pertinent to note that the Proviso to section 8B specifies that the attachment and sale of any property under that section shall first be effected against the properties of the establishment and the proceedings against the property of the employer can be effected only if such an attachment and sale is insufficient for recovering the amounts due. 8. Under the above context the question mooted for consideration is as to whether the authorities can proceed against the assets of the ‘establishment’, for recovery of arrears of contributions which the transferee ‘employer’ had defaulted, and for which as ‘employer’ the transferee is primarily liable. While accepting the dictum in Annie Thomas (cited supra) the above question can only be answered in the affirmative. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent points out the proviso to section 17B of the Act, which says that the liability of the transferee shall be limited to the value of the assets obtained by him by such transfer. Therefore, the contention of the 4th respondent is that respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to proceed against his personal properties for recovery of the amounts due after expiry of the lease period, since he is not holding any of the assets of the establishment, thereafter. This aspect further clarifies the situation for strongly holding that the authorities can, or rather ought to have, proceeded against the assets of the ‘establishment’ for recovery of arrears fallen due with respect to the period for which the establishment was run under lease by anybody else other than its real owner. 9. This aspect further clarifies the situation for strongly holding that the authorities can, or rather ought to have, proceeded against the assets of the ‘establishment’ for recovery of arrears fallen due with respect to the period for which the establishment was run under lease by anybody else other than its real owner. 9. Learned counsel or the petitioner strongly contended that there is a clear failure on the part of respondents 1 to 3 in taking effective steps against the 4th respondent, including steps of prosecution, inspite of repeated requests made on that behalf. Therefore, the contention is that, his establishment and its assets cannot be proceeded against for recovery of the arrears without taking effective steps against the 4th respondent. I am afraid to accept the request, in view of the provisions quoted above. It is an undisputed fact that the 4th respondent is the ‘employer’ primarily responsible for payment of the amounts due for the said period. That be so, he is also liable to be proceeded against with whatever coercive steps available under law, subject to the limitations prescribed under the proviso to Section 17B of the Act. But the question arose for consideration is whether respondents 1 to 3 need be prevented from proceeding with the recovery steps against the establishment, in case the amount is not recovered from employer. In view of the above discussions, it is clear and evident that the authorities are entitled and obliged to proceed against the ‘establishment’. During the relevant period, as well as the establishment, which basically is the assets of the establishment, are jointly and severally liable to be proceeded against for the purpose of recovery. 10. In the result, it is made clear that respondents 1 to 3 are free to take effective steps as provided under law, including steps for prosecution against the 4th respondent, coercing him for payment of the amounts due. But it is made clear that the respondents are equally entitled to recover the amount from the assets of the ‘establishment’ in view of the observations made above. The Original Petition is disposed of subject to the above observations.