IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Joydeb Basak & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Opp. Parties
C.R.R. 3660 of 2016 with IA No. CRAN 6 of 2018 (CRAN 1807 of 2018) with CRAN 14 of 2020 (CRAN 702 of 2020) with CRAN 16 of 2024
Decided On : 21-05-2024
Liability - Employer - EPF and MP Act, 1952 - Sections 2(e), 6; IPC - Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B - The court interpreted the definition of 'employer' under the EPF and MP Act, emphasizing that non-remittance of deducted contributions constitutes a violation, regardless of subsequent payments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners faced charges under IPC for failing to remit deducted provident fund contributions from employees' wages, despite later payments being made after the statutory deadline.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a director, was liable under the EPF and MP Act, and that subsequent payments did not absolve the original violation of non-remittance.
Issues: Whether the director can be considered an employer under the EPF and MP Act and if subsequent payment of dues absolves liability for earlier non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a director can be prosecuted as an employer under the EPF and MP Act, and late payment does not negate the original offense.
Result: The court dismissed the revisional application, upholding the charges against the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.) :
1. In the present application the challenge is the proceedings in connection with G.R. Case no. 7492 of 2015 arising out of Khardah Police Station case no. 1060/15 dated 18.12.2015 under Sections 406/409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) presently pending before the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short ACJM), Barackpore.
Background:-
2. On 18.12.2015 the Inspector of Enforcement, Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Organization, SRO, Barackpore lodged a written complaint with the officer in-charge of Khardah Police Station inter alia alleging the commission of offence under Section 406 of the IPC. The allegation leveled in the said complaint is to the effect that the petitioner no.1/company is covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short EPF and MP Act) under code no. 338. It has been alleged that as per provisions of Section 6 of the said act read with paragraph 38 of the Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the petitioner no.1 is required to pay the employees’ share of provident fund contribution deducted from the salaries/wages/amount on or before 15th of the following month to the Statutory Provident of the Central Board of Trustees. It was alleged that when the complainant went on inspection of the said mill of the petitioner no.1/ company, it was noted by him that the petitioner no. 2 had deducted a sum of Rs. 15,91,619/- from the wages/salaries of the employees for the period months of October and November of 2015 and the same amount was not remitted with the statutory fund.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case being no. Khardah Police Station case no. 1060/15 was registered against the petitioners herein under Section 406 of the IPC. During investigation, the Investigating Officer made a prayer for adding further Sections 409/420/120B of the IPC as it was revealed that there was a non-remittance of the said amount being Rs. 15,91,615/- by the petitioners. The prayer was allowed by the Ld. ACJM, Barackpore vide an order dated 20.08.2016 and the charges under Sections 409/420/120B of the IPC were added subsequently.
Argument advanced:-
4. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has advanced a two folds argument. To begin with, it is submitted that petitioner no. 2 herein, being a Director of a company cannot be termed as employer within the meaning of Section 2(e) (i) (ii) of the EPF and MP Act, 1952.
5. In addition to, Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that the proceedings was initiated for non-deposit of the share of provident fund of the employees within the stipulated period. But, all the outstanding dues for the months of October and November, 2015 has already been paid by the petitioners although after statutory period. Mr. Mukherjee has further submitted that outstanding amount was paid on 18.12.2015 and 06.01.2016.
6. Mr. Mukherjee, thereby, has made an effort to impress this court that the liability of the petitioners/company has been absolved after payment of the outstanding dues even beyond statutory period.
7. In support of his contention, Mr. Mukherjee, has relied on the following cases:-
- Air Transport Corporation & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 164
- Jasoda Glass and Silicate and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others reported in 2001 SCC OnLine Cal 542.
- Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. S.K. Aggarwal and others reported in (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 288
- Howrah Motor Company Limited & Ors. v. Samir Kumar Das reported in 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 430.
8. Before parting with Mr. Mukherjee, submitted that the judgements relied on behalf of the opposite parties did not refer the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Adoni Cotton Mills (supra). As a sequel, the jud
Adoni Cotton Mills Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. S.K. Aggarwal and Others
Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wodiyar vs. Enforcement Officer, Mysore
Directors can be held liable for non-remittance of provident fund contributions, and late payments do not absolve prior violations.
A director of a company cannot be held responsible for any act of the company who is the employer and is liable for depositing the employees' share of provident fund before the provident fund authori....
Directors of a company cannot be prosecuted for non-deposit of provident fund contributions as the company itself is the principal employer responsible for such obligations.
The principal employer retains responsibility for statutory dues for workers employed through contractors, irrespective of contractual arrangements, and appeals regarding statutory matters must be fi....
A person cannot be held liable for offences committed prior to their appointment, and proper sanction for prosecution is essential under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.