Directors of a company can be held individually liable for statutory contraventions under the Employees' State Insurance Act irrespective of management roles.

1. This is a Rule directed against the order passed by a Presidency Magistrate convicting the petitioner under S.85 (a) read with S.73 - A of the Employees' State Insurance Act (Act 34 of 1948) and also under S.85 (g) read with S.73 - E of the said Act and also under S.85 (g) read with Regulation 26 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulation, 1950. The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- on each of the three counts of charge and in default to suffer a simple imprisonment for one week.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is a Director of M/s. Bengal Steam Laundry Private Ltd. having its factory at 42C, Richi Road, Calcutta bearing a Code No. 41/3882. The principal employer of a factory is required to make special contribution in terms of the provision of S.73 - A of the Employees' State Insurance Act read with a Government Notification No. SS 121(60) dated 6-2-52 within 30 days of the expiry of a quarter and also to submit return in form (SC 2) under S.73 - E of the said Act read with notification No. RS - 9/52B dated 16-2-52 within 45 days of the expiry of each quarter and further required to submit contribution cards within 42 days of the expiry of each contribution period under regulation 26 of the E.S.I. (General) Regulation, 1950. A complaint had been filed under S.86 of the State Insurance Act and the petitioner was punished in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate under S.85 (a) and 85 (g) of the Act.

3. It is not challenged that the petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Bengal Steam Laundry. But the contention of the petitioner is that Sri B. Roy Choudhury, another Director, used to look after the management of the concern and, therefore, he is not liable for contravention of the provisions of the State Insurance Act.

4. The complaint had been filed against the petitioner as well as against Sri B. Roy Choudhury, the Director - in - charge and both of them had been convicted as being the principal employer.

5. S.85 of the Act renders any person punishable for contravention of the provisions of the Act. The prosecution in this case had been started against two Directors.

6. The word "principal employer" is defined in S.2 (17) of the Act which runs as follows:
"In a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and includes the Managing Agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier, and where a person has been named as the Manager of the factory under the Factories Act (1948) (LXIII of 1948), the person so named."

7. Apparently, therefore, in a factory the owner, including the Managing Agent of such owner and also the Manager of the factory are included within the meaning of the word "principal employer". The petitioner as a Director of the limited Company is the owner. Obviously, if there be several persons in the position of Directors all are liable for contravention of the provisions of the Act and Regulation. From the side of the defence a photostat copy of the registration of resolution and agreement of the M/s. Bengal Steam Laundry Private Ltd. were filed which clearly indicates that the petitioner was one of the Directors described as a Technical Director though Sri Bhupati Roy Choudhury, another Director, who also had been convicted was placed in charge of the management of the affairs of the Company subject to the control and supervision of the Board of Directors. P.W. 4, the Manager of E.S.I. Corporation, visited the factory on 19-8-1965 and found the petitioner present there. He carried on inspection in his presence and submitted the Inspection Report (Ext. 5). The Inspection Report indicates that the petitioner was interviewed on the date of t