SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Cal) 166

P.C.BOROOAH, S.C.MAJUMDAR
WIRE MACHINERY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

P. C. Borooah, J.: The petitioners in all these Rules are being prosecuted In the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta under the provisions of Ss. 14 (1A), 14 (2), 14A (1) and 14AA of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 read with para 78 (b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme (hereinafter the Act and the Scheme) on the basis of complaints filed by the Provident Fund Inspector, West Bengal.

2. The common question of law which arises in all these Rules is whether a complaint can be lodged and cognizance taken after a period of one year from the date of the alleged contravention of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Scheme?

3. According to the complaints the first petitioner along with petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are its Directors had not paid the employer's and employees' share of the contributions and administrative charges for the different months which are the subject matter of the cases started against them.

4. In support of the Rules we have heard Mr. Bejoy Kumar Bhose. We have also permitted Mr. J. N. Ghose and Mr. D. K. Dutta to intervene as they are appearing on behalf of the petitioners in other Rules



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top