Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and R.K.Choudhary JJ.
Bankim Chandra Chakravarty
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 694 of 1956 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 11, 1958
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ACT, 1952 - SECTION 1(3), 14(3), 19A, 14A - EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS SCHEME, 1952 - PARAGRAPH 2(F), 76 - FACTORIES ENGAGED IN CONTROLLED INDUSTRY - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - DISPUTE SETTLEMENT - LIABILITY OF MANAGING AGENT - JOINDER OF MULTIPLE ORDERS IN SINGLE WRIT APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company, engaged in the manufacture of high-pressure incandescent lamps, challenged the applicability of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the Scheme framed thereunder, claiming that it did not employ 50 or more persons and was not engaged in an industry specified in Schedule I of the Act. The company also contended that no valid sanction for prosecution was obtained and that a dispute regarding the applicability of the Act was pending before the Central Government under Section 19A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner company was engaged in an industry specified in Schedule I of the Act, namely, electrical, mechanical, or general engineering products, and that the term "hurricane lanterns" used in the Explanation of the Schedule included incandescent lamps. The court also found that the sanction for prosecution was validly granted by the appropriate authorities and that the dispute raised by the company under Section 19A of the Act was not a bar to prosecution.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner company was engaged in an industry specified in Schedule I of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952. 2. Whether the sanction for prosecution was validly granted. 3. Whether the dispute raised by the company under Section 19A of the Act barred prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "electrical, mechanical, or general engineering products" in Schedule I of the Act to include high-pressure incandescent lamps, and also held that the term "hurricane lanterns" used in the Explanation of the Schedule included incandescent lamps. 2. The court found that the sanction for prosecution was validly granted by the appropriate authorities, as the petitioner company was engaged in a controlled industry and the Central Government had authorized the relevant authorities to grant sanction. 3. The court held that the dispute raised by the company under Section 19A of the Act was not a bar to prosecution, as the section did not contemplate disputes raised by parties and only provided for directions by the Central Government in case of difficulty or doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner company was engaged in an industry specified in Schedule I of the Act, that the sanction for prosecution was valid, and that the dispute raised under Section 19A of the Act did not bar prosecution. The court also held that the joinder of multiple orders in a single writ application was not maintainable.
R.K.Choudhary, J.
1. The facts giving rise to the presentation of this writ application are as under:
2. Petitioner No. 1 is a share-holder in the Dhalbhum Trades and Industries Ltd., petitioner No. 2, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (hereinafter to be referred to as the company), and the Managing Director of the firm of B. Chakravarty and Co. (Private) Ltd., which are the managing agents of the company. It appears that the company was required to submit monthly returns and deposit the contributions and administrative charges as provided by the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), read with the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Scheme). As it was not regular in submitting the monthly returns and depositing the contributions, notices were issued to it from time to time for complying with the requirements, and it appears that subsequently the company made the deposits up to November, 1953. The deposits for the months of December, 1953 to May. 1954, were, however, not made, and monthly returns for the months of January to May, 1954, were not submitted.
Consequently, a complaint was filed against petitioner No. 1 and cognizance was taken by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of offences under Sec.14 of the Act read with paragraph 76 of the Scheme and Petitioner No. 1 was put on trial. He was convicted by the trial court, but on appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him because he held that sanction for the prosecution had not been given by any competent authority as required by the law and that the prosecution being in respect of more than three offences of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months, the trial was in contravention of Sec.234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On the merit of the case, however, he definitely held that the facts disclosed in the case attracted the provisions of the Act and the Scheme as there were fifty or more persons employed in the company and it engaged in an industry specified in Schedule I of the Act. As the petitioners failed to deposit the contributions for subsequent periods, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, opposite party No. 1, filed fifteen petitions of complaint under Sec.14 of the Act read with paragraph 76 of the Scheme for the period from June, 1954 to July, 1955.
Some of the cases are pending before the Sub-divisional Officer, opposite party No. 2, and the others are pending before Mr. P. N. Sen, Magistrate, 1st Class, opposite party No. 3. It is also alleged that opposite party No. 1 is demanding contributions for subsequent periods also. In those circumstances the petitioners filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of an appropriate writ to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, and to restrain opposite party No. 1 from demanding or realising any contribution. The application has been opposed by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of opposite party No. 1 who has shown cause by filing a counter-affidavit.
3. The company, namely, petitioner No. 2, as the statement in the application shows, is carrying on business at Ghatsila in the district el Singhbhum in manufacture Of high pressure incandescent lamps, besides mines, fisheries, hat, etc.
4. On behalf of the petitioners Mr. Ghosh has contended that the provisions of the Act do not apply to this company. In support o[ this contention he has drawn our attention to Sec.1 (3) of the Act which runs as follows:
"Subject to the provisions contained in Sec.16, it applies in the first instance to all factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule 1 in which fifty or more persons are employed, but the Central Government may, after giving not less than two months notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the provisions of this
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
