JUDGMENT:- These Appeals can be conveniently disposed off by a common judgment. They have been filed by the Complainant, a Provident Fund Inspector, against the Judgment/Order dated 31-1-2007 of the learned J.M.F.C., Vasco-da-Gama, by which the accused have been acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 14(1-B) r/w. Section 14-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act, for short).

2. I have heard Shri. R. Rao, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents/Accused.

3. Respondent No.1 -Company along with its Managing Director, Respondent No.2, and so also the other Directors were prosecuted by the said Complainant for having committed the aforesaid offences. However, leave to appeal was restricted only to Respondent No.1 Company and its Managing Director Respondent No.2.

4. The case of the Complainant as can be seen from paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of each of the complaints was that the accused were required to pay the Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Contributions and Administrative Charges for every month within fifteen days of the close of that month in respect of the employees of the said establishment and that in spite of several requests, the accused failed to pay the same in the manner required for the following periods :-

Month and E.D.I. Administrative

Year Contributions Charges

09/02 1465/- 29/-

10/02 146)/- 29/-

11/02 1441/- 29/-

12/02 1445/- 29/-

01/03 1506/- 30/-

02/03 1504/- 30/-

03/03 1514/- 30/-

TOTAL: 10340/- 206/-

It was also the case of the Complainant that the accused therefore had committed offences punishable under Section 6-C of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 rtw. paras 7 and 8 of the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 on the dates shown therein. A perusal of records shows that by Order dated 26-6-2003, and in terms of Section 7 -A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 a sum of Rs.5,29,644/- was determined to be payable by the Respondent Company towards Provident Fund, Employees Pension Fund and Administrative charges for a period from 09/2002 to 03/2003 in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The said Order was not challenged by the Respondent-Company. The learned J.M.F.C., as can be seen from para 19 of the Order proceeded to acquit the accused on a specious ground that there was no material to show that during the said period the accused had employed 20 workers or more and a bald allegation in the complaint to the effect that accused No.1 is an establishment, to which the provisions of the Act applied without disclosing as to how and why it applied would not satisfy the requirements of law. The said finding came to be given by the learned Magistrate inspite of the fact that the said Order dated 26-3-2003 was passed after a notice to show cause was given to the establishment of the Respondent Company, and which order they had chosen not to challenge. On the face of that order, payments having been made after that order and in the absence of any cross-examination the finding given has got to be considered as perverse. It was not expected of the Complainant to narrate in a parrot like fashion that the provisions of law was applicable to the Respondent-Company because it had employed 20 workers or more. On that ground, the acquittal could not at all be justified. However, there are other formidable grounds, why acquittal cannot be reversed.

5. With the assistance of learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent-Accused the record has been perused, and it shows that after the said Order dated 26-6-2003 sanction was obtained by the Complainant on 10-12- 2009 ALL MR (Cri) . June 2003, and the complaints were filed on 30-12-2003. All payments were made by the establishment of accused on 29-10-2003 and this fact was recorded by this Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document