SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(SC) 236

O. CHHINNAPPA REDDY, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD
Bhagirath Kanoria: Bahadur Singh: Raja Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. : Provident Fund Inspector: Provident Fund Inspector – Respondent


JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :—These appeals raise a question of general public importance as to whether failure to pay the employers contribution to the Provident Fund is continuing offence. If it is, no question of limitation can arise. On the other hand, if it is not a continuing offence, the complaint for nonpayment of the contribution has to be filed within the stated period.

2. The facts of these appeals vary from case to case but such variation is inconsequential for our purpose. We will therefore state the facts of a representative group of these cases which comprises Criminal Appeals Nos. 407-418 of 1979.

3. On August 22, 1975 the Provident Fund Inspector, Indore, Madhya Pradesh filed six complaints against the appellants and respondent 2, charging them with non-payment of employers contribution under the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 19 of 1952 (referred to herein as "the Act"). Respondent 2 is a Company called M/s. Burhanpur Tapti Mills Limited, of which appellants 1 to 3 were Directors and appellant 4 the Factory Manager. Under Section 17 of the Act, the Company was granted exemption from the operation of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 wh






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top