JUDGMENT

S. MOHAN,J.:-All these matters can be dealt with under a common judgment since the question which arises for consideration is the scope of Section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956.

2. It is enough if we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 3012 of 1990. The short facts are as follows:

Eastern Manufacturing Company Ltd. "(The Company" in short) is the owner of a jute mill in West Bengal. The appellants were appointed Directors between 10-4-1981 and 15-6-1984. There was a lockout in the Jute Mill On 2-6-1982. By a notification dated 26-10-1983, Government of West Bengal declared the said jute mill as a relief under taking under the provisions of West Bengal Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1972. However, on 24-11-1983, the lockout was lifted. Thereafter the mill resumed its manufacturing operation between 16-1-1984 and 8.4.1984. There was a strike in the Jute Industry throughout West Bengal. Between 7-3-1985 and 3-8-1985 there was a lock out due to labour unrest. As a result of all these the company defaulted in the payment of the provident fund dues. On 28-1-1986, a petition was moved on behalf of the appellants under Section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for being relieved of liability for delayed as well as nonpayment of the provident fund dues and other ancillary dues. On 21-8-1986 a consent order was passed by the learned single Judge allowing the outstanding provident fund dues to be paid in monthly instalments of Rupees 50,000/ -commencing from April, 1986, until the entire liability is paid off.

3. Since this course was accepted by the provident fund authorities it was not considered necessary to serve summons on the Registrar of Companies because what was sought to be recovered were the dues under the Provident Fund Act. It was further ordered concerning Prayer-B that an injunction shall issue restraining the respondents from initiating any criminal proceedings against the appellants or any of them for nonpayment or delayed payment of the provident fund.

4. Aggrieved by this order, the first respondent before us namely, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner filed appeal No. 286 of 1987. The division Bench which heard the matter rendered its impugned judgment on 13-3-1990. The sole point which came up for determination was, whether the learned single Judge was right in granting relief under Section 633 of the Act that in respect of offences committed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "The Provident Fund Act)".

5. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the relief under Section 633 of the Act could be granted only in respect of offences committed under the Companies Act and not in respect of offences under any other law. It is also submitted that in respect of violations of the provisions of the Act, it is the Registrar of Companies or any one authorised on his behalf who could initiate criminal cases. On the contrary, in respect of offences committed under the Provident Fund Act the appropriate authority to initiate such action would be the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. On an elaborate consideration with reference to decided cases, it was held that any proceeding referred to in Section 633 of the Act would mean only under the provisions of the Act.

6. Reference was also made to Sec. 14A of the Provident Fund Act inserted by Amending Act 37 of 1953 and it was concluded:

"If the contention that Section 633 applies in respect of liabilities arising also under the provisions of any Act other than the said Act, is accepted, then and in that case a peculiar situation will arise, a person who is otherwise liable in view of the provisions of Section 14A would be entitled to relief under Section 633 if he is employed by or connected with a company which is covered both by Provident Fund Act and the Companies Act but a person shall not be so entitled to such relief if he is not an employee of