Where the entire dues have been paid by the employers in terms of the order of the Regional Provident Fund Authorities, there is no justification for further continuation of the proceeding against them for non-payment of Provident Fund dues.

( 1 ) THIS instant application is for quashing of the proceeding being C/1853/2000 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta.

( 2 ) A complaint under section 14 (2a) read with section 14a (2) of the employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was lodged against the petitioners by the Inspector of Employees' Provident Fund miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was alleged that the petitioners being employers failed tq comply with certain requirements in respect of the said establishment:- (a) to transfer monthly Provident Fund contributions amounting to Rs. 1,56,994/- (Employee's Share) and Rs. 1,08, 547/- (Employer's Share) and Rs. 17,19,794/- to the Board of Trustees for the months of November, 1998 to January, 1999 in contravention of the relevant conditions and exemption read with Government of India Notification issued under subsection (3) of section 17 of the said Act and (b) to pay Inspection charges amounting to Rs. 778/- for the month of January, 1999 in contravention of the provision of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 17 of the said Act read with the relevant Government of India Notification issued in this regard.

( 3 ) CHALLENGING the maintainability of the case, the petitioners made an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate with a prayer for dropping of the proceeding. It was contended before the Court below that the petitioners were restrained from depositing Employees' Provident Fund dues in view of the order of restraint passed by the Hon'ble Court in connection with c. S. No. 384/98. It was also contended that they approached the Employees provident Fund Authorities for permission to pay the dues by instalments. On such prayer for depositing the dues in instalments being granted by the provident Fund Authorities, the entire dues were deposited by them. In view of the payment of the entire dues, the petitioners prayed for dropping of the proceeding. The prayer for dropping of the proceeding, however, was challenged by the State.

( 4 ) LEARNED Magistrate vide his order dated 10. 06. 2003 duly recorded the fact that payment of the entire dues had been made by instalments. However, considering that there was a delay in payment of the dues, learned Magistrate viewed that it was too early to form any opinion as to the maintainability of the case.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed the instant revisional application for quashing of the entire proceeding.

( 6 ) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioners Mr. Sekhar Basu, Senior Advocate, has submitted that in view of the payment of the entire dues by the petitioners, the proceeding against them for non-payment of the Provident Fund dues should have been dropped. It is contended that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration that circumstances prevented the petitioners from depositing the dues. In the wake of the order of injunction passed by the Hon'ble Court, the petitioners were restrained from handling the bank accounts. It was only after the engagement of the Special Officer in terms of the order of the Hon'ble court that the difficulties in payment of dues were sorted out. In support of his contention that the proceeding has now become meaningless and unwarranted. Mr. Basu has referred to the ruling of Jasoda Glass and Silicate and Ors. vs. Regional provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. , reported in 2002 (2) CHN 407. In the aforesaid case, it was viewed that in view of the payment of the outstanding dues, the proceeding should be dropped.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, more than 17 lakhs of rupees had fallen due because of nonpayment of the Employees' Provident Fund dues in time. It appears from the copy of the order passed in C. S. 384/98 that a Special Officer was appointed for disbursement of the salary and other dues of the employees. It, however, transpires from the copy of the order passed in aforesaid case being T1161/98 (C. S.