IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Om Prakash Saxena And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal And Another – Respondents
C.R.R. 3764 of 2017
Decided On : 06-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. By filing this Criminal Revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners being the accused persons sought for quashing of the proceeding of Case No. C/347 of 2016 under Sections 14(1A), 14A (1) and 14(2A) of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 1st Court, Barrackpore including the Order passed therein dated July 19, 2016. By the said order, the Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the present petitioners.
2. The brief facts, leading to filing of this instant Criminal Revisional application, are that one Sanjay Biswas, Enforcement Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office, Barrackpore lodged a petition of complaint against the present petitioners contending therein that the accused persons, being the Directors, were in charge of establishment, namely, M/s Bengal Waterproof Limited having its registered officer at “MMS Chambers”, 1st Floor, 4A, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700 001 and were responsible for the conduct of its business. In discharge of such responsibilities, they took part in the running of the business. They are bound to comply with the provision of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the scheme in respect of the said establishment. The accused persons, however, failed to submit the monthly returns for the period November 2013 to January 2014 under the provisions of Clause 16 of Appendix “A” to Paragraph 27AA of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Therefore, they committed an offence under Sections 14(1)/14(1A)/14(1B)/14(2A)/14A(1)/14A(2)/14AA of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
2a. It is the contention of the petitioners that the complaint has been made by the Officer is totally false and fabricated. No such offence was committed by the present petitioners. The opposite party no. 2 has suppressed the entire material facts before the Learned Magistrate to the effect that M/s Bengal Waterproof Limited has been non-operational since 2013. All the employees of the said establishment resigned from the establishment in the month of November, 2011. The fact of resignation was also brought to the notice of the opposite party no. 2. Accordingly, the opposite party no. 2 has released the funds held under the Provident Fund deposit scheme for final settlement of the fund’s dues to all the employees. All payments have been made to all the employees according to their entitlements. Not a single complaint has been made by any of the employees of the said establishment against the petitioners. As such, the entire complaint is false and misconceived and proceeding therein is liable to be quashed at the threshold. After receiving such petition of complaint, the Learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the present petitioners. Hence, this instant Criminal Revisional application.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently submitted that the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are false and fabricated. The opposite party no. 2/complainant has suppressed the material facts in the petition of complaint with regard to the non-operational of the organization since 2013. Furthermore, it is also not disclosed to the Learned Court below about the resignation of all the employees from the establishment in the month of November, 2011. The said facts were brought to the knowledge of the petitioner no. 2 by the establishment prior to making complaint. Accordingly, the opposite party no. 2 has released the funds held under the provident fund deposit scheme for final settlement of provident fund dues to all the employees. All employees of the said establishment have already received their entitlements as a final settlement. Not a single complaint has be
Non-filing of returns under the Act is not a continuing offence if dues are settled, reinforcing prior judgments on the subject.
Initiating criminal proceedings before the final adjudication of the dispute would be an abuse of the process of law. Criminal liability arises only after the failure to deposit the determined amount....
The legal point established is that for summons to be issued, the accused must be a natural or juridical person, and specific allegations are necessary for determining vicarious liability.
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 court quashed the complaint against EPF and ESI officers, finding it malicious and aimed at evading statutory liabilities, emphasizing protections under the EPF and ESI Acts.
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.