Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
Employees Provident Fund Organisation – Appellant
Versus
Narinder Singla – Respondent
Certainly. Here is a prepared cross-examination outline for the section 92 of the Factory Act, 1948, based on typical legal and procedural considerations:
Cross-Examination on Section 92 of the Factory Act, 1948
Q: Can you confirm that this section authorizes inspections to ensure compliance with safety, health, and welfare standards in factories? (!)
Procedural Requirements
Q: Were the samples taken in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the Act? (!)
Sampling and Testing
Q: Are the testing methods used for analyzing the samples compliant with the standards set by law? (!)
Legal Validity of Inspection and Sampling
Q: Have you observed any irregularities or deviations from the statutory requirements in the inspection process? (!)
Role of the Factory Management
Q: Are there any records or documents that show compliance or non-compliance during the inspection? (!)
Implications of Non-Compliance
Q: Are there provisions under the Act to challenge the validity of the inspection or sampling procedures? (!)
Impact on the Case
Note:
Ensure the questions are tailored to the specific facts and documents in your case. The references (!) , (!) , etc., should correspond to the factual or procedural details available in the case files or records.
Would you like me to prepare specific questions based on a particular scenario or document?
JUDGMENT
Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.
In the two petitions titled above, both filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer is made to quash complaint No. COMI/20/2018 (Annexure P-2) and the summoning order dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, whereby petitioners of both the petitions have been summoned to face trial under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/472/406/408/409/167/200/198/384/120B IPC; and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Complaint in question was filed by respondent No.2- Narinder Singla to summon and prosecute as many as eight persons, named below:-
| Accused N: | Name of the Accused |
| 1. | Krishan Kumar, Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund (EPF) Office, Model Town, Phase-1, Bathinda |
| 2. | Gurmeet Singh Sidhu C/o M/s Advantage HR Solutions, Near Thakural Hospital, Civil Lines, Bathinda |
| 3. | Munish Garg, Office Clerk C/o M/s Advantage HR Solutions, Near Thakural Hospital, Civil Lines, Bathinda |
| 4. | Krishan Lal Inspector, ESI Corporation, Office at Bathinda |
| 5. | Kuldeep Bhagat, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPF Office, Model Town, Phase-1, Bathin |
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.
The employer must ensure EPF contributions for all employees, including those employed through contractors, and must comply with principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings.
Point of Law : Provident Fund is not a tax. It is an amount collectable to the benefit of an individual identified employee as a social welfare measure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to decide the entitlement of an employee to become a member and the date from which the e....
The court established that the Central Board of Trustees has the standing to challenge Tribunal orders and that the assessment of PF contributions must be based on actual wages drawn by employees, no....
The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, ruling insufficient evidence for criminal charges and highlighting potential double jeopardy from concurrent civil proceedings under the EPF Act.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in administrative proceedings, particularly ensuring that parties are given adequate opportunity to contest findings befor....
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 Commissioner must conduct an independent inquiry under Section 7A of the Act, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles before determining amounts due from employers.
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
