TJAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS,J. - (1.) The petitioner in this WP under Article 226 dated January 20, 2012 is questioning an order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II, Sub-Regional Office, Howrah dated December 12, 2011 (at p. 206).
(2.) The relevant part of the order is quoted below:- "Hence, I have no hesitation in deciding that Sri L.N. Bangur is employer under Section 2(e) of the Act and he is responsible for liability of the company under the EPF and MP Act and being responsible in his capacity as Managing Director he has to make good the short remittance amount due from the company and action taken under Section 8B to 8G by the Recovery Officer including issuance of CP.25 against the employer is justified. Hence Sri L.N. Bangur is directed to liquidate the dues to avoid legal consequences."
(3.) Mr. Sengupta appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows. The authority wrongly held the petitioner to be the employer liable to pay dues of the establishment. Even if the petitioner was the employer, recovery proceedings could be initiated, for, admittedly, the establishment had been granted exemption.;