Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) Affidavit of service filed shows service has been made on all the respondents yet none are represented.
(2.) Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appears on behalf of the petitioners and submits that notice to showcause dated 23rd November, 2017 as to why arrest warrant should not be issued against his client is under challenge in this writ petition. Referring to Section 8B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 he submits, arrest as a mode of recovery should be the last resort. He relies on a case decided by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court between Regional R.P.F. COMNR. E.P.F.ORG., HYDERABAD V. DECCAN FOAM, 2005 105 FLR 1184, in particular to paragraph 10 therein which is extracted below:- "In our considered opinion, the submission is misconceived and we are not inclined to read the provision in the manner suggested by the learned Standing Counsel. Under section 8-B of the Act even the movable and immovable properties of the employer cannot be attached and sold for the purposes of realization of the arrears without first exhausting the remedy of attaching and bringing the properties of the establishment for sale and, if that is so, it would be absurd to hold that employer can be arrested for the purpose of sending him to imprisonment without even finding whether the attachment and sale of the properties of establishment for realization of the arrears is sufficient or not."
(3.) His further submission is that the establishment is paying in instalments the amount due. There has been an order of attachment that has not resulted in sale for the authorities to resort to arrest the employer.;