JUDGMENT

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:— The question of general importance that arises in these three appeals is whether criminal proceedings can be instituted under S. 14 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act for short) against an establishment exempted under S. 17 of the Act for the contravention of the provisions of S. 6 of the Act?

2. The appellants, who are common in each of these three appeals, were connected with the management of M/s. Shri Subhalaxmi Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "said Company") an establishment governed by the Act. By a Notification dated 17th October, 1954 the Central Government in exercise of the powers under S. 17 of the Act granted exemption to the said Company subject to the conditions specified in Schedule 2 annexed to the said Notification. As a result of the said exemption the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 framed under S. 5 of the Act did not apply to the said Company which created a Trust ant the management made contributions of provident fund to the said trust and admittedly the exemption continued to be in operation at all material times. In or about September/ October, 1975 the Inspector of Provident Fund filed criminal complaints in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Cambay against the appellants on the allegation that they being in charge of the management failed to pay the contributions to the provident fund trust and thereby committed offences punishable under Ss. 14(1A), 14(2), 14(2A), 14A(1), 14A(2) and Paragraph 76 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The appellants also received notice dated 15th September, 1975 from the Inspector threatening to cancel the exemption granted under S. 17 of the Act. However, sometime in September, 1975 the said Companys Mill had to be closed down and liquidation proceedings were initiated. The criminal complaints persuant to an order of the High Court were transferred to the Court of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The respondent No. 1, the complainant was examined who in his evidence admitted that the Government of India had exempted the said Company under S. 17 of the Act and the same had not been subsequently cancelled and was in existence at all material times. The appellants filed an application praying that the proceedings against them should be dropped and they should be acquitted on the ground that S. 6 of the Act was not applicable to the establishment exempted under S. 17 of the Act and therefore no proceedings under S. 14 can be initiated against them. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 28th November, 1978 rejected the aforesaid application. Being aggrieved, they filed three criminal revision applications in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad who by a common order dismissed the same taking the view that S. 6 of the Act covers and attracts all the establishments including the exempted establishment. Against that order in those three revision applications, the present appeals have been filed.

3. Shri P. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that none of the Sections of the Act mentioned in the complaints can be applied as against the appellants since the establishment in question is exempted under S. 17 of the Act and consequently is not governed by the 1952 Scheme nor by S. 6 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the Act does not provide for prosecution in respect of any of the offences enumerated under S. 14 in case of breach by an exempted establishment in not paying the provident fund contributions to the trust and therefore no prosecution can be launched and that if at all the management of the eshtablishment had not deposited the provident fund contributions with the trust, the Government was empowered only to cancel the exemption which also amounts to a penalty.

4. The learned counsel appearing on both sides addressed elaborate arguments and referred to various provisions o