IMPORTANT POINT
A Director of a private company, who is neither an occupier nor a manager an be prosecuted u/s. 14(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 when the director having declared himself as one of the person incharge of and responsible for conduct of the business of the establishment.

JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J. - Special Leave granted. 2. Since common question of law arises in these 18 appeals for decision, they are disposed of by a common judgment The appellant is one of the Directors of M/s. Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd., Yadavagiri, Mysore a Private Ltd. company established under the Companies Act. It was also registered under the Factories Act, 1948. Its object is to manufacture Motor-cycles and its accessories. It has its Managing Direct or, Joint Managing Director and Directors including the appellant to manage the establishment. The respondent laid 18 complaints against six accused including the appellant (A-6) and the company, employer, for their failure to deposit the contribution for the periods of October to December 1990 to the Provident Fund Account No. NK 2260 under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for short the Act Employees Provident Funds Scheme 1952, Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and Employees Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976. for short, the Schemes punishat5le under S. 14A of the Act read with para 76 of 1952 Scheme. On the Magistrates taking cognizance thereof, the appellant laid Crl. M. Ps. in the High Court to quash the complaints as they do not contain the relevant averments constituting the offences against the appellant. It is his case that he is a mere Director of the company. He was neither Incharge of the company, nor is responsible to comply with the provisions of the Act and the schemes. In support thereof he placed reliance on the definition employer and the liability has been fastened on the Managing Director or the Manager or occupier of the establishment to abide by the Act and the Scheme. The High Court by its order dated March 3, 1992 dismissed the applications. Thus these appeals.

3. Shri Nesargi, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant contended that a reading of the definition employer in s. 2(e) read with ss. 30 14(1-A) and paras 30 and 38 of the Schemes demonstrates that the employer in relation to an establishment means the owner or occupier of the factory which includes the Agent or the Manager of the factory under the Factories Act One Sri N.K. Khudamurad was recorded as occupier and one Sri D.K. Darasha was recorded as the Manager. They are Incharge of and were responsible to comply with the Act and the Schemes. No specific averments were made in the complaint making the appellant responsible for the management of the factory or the liability, to comply with the Act and the Schemes. The complaint, therefore, laid against him is illegal and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is vitiated by manifest error of law. In support thereof he placed reliance on the decisions of this court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors.1, and Employees State Insurance Corpn. v. Gurdial Singh & Ors.2.

4. The Act and the schemes are self-contained code for deduction from the salary of the employees and the responsibility to contribute in equi-proportion of the employers share and deposit thereof in the account within the specified time under the Act and the Schemes into the account. It is a welfare legislation to provide benefits to the employees as per the schemes. They need mandatory compliance and violation thereof visits with penal action. Section 2(e) of the Act defines employer which means - in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the Agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a Manager of the factory under clause (1) of sub-s. (1) of s. 7 of the Factories Act,. 1948, the person so named.

The definition is an inclusive definition bringing within its ambit the owner or occupier as well as its Manager. Section 2(k) defines occupier which means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory, and, where the said affairs are entrusted to a managing agent. Su