BHAGIRATH KANORIA BAHADUR SINGH RAJA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH :PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR:PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals raise a question of general public importance as to whether failure to pay the employers' contribution to the Provident Fund is continuing offence. If it is, no question of limitation can arise. On the other hand, if it is not a continuing offence, the complaint for nonpayment of the contribution has to be filed within the stated period.

(2.) The facts of these appeals vary from case to case but such variation is inconsequential for our purpose. We will therefore state the facts of a representative group of these cases which comprises Criminal Appeals Nos. 407-418 of 1979.

(3.) On August 22, 1975 the Provident Fund Inspector, Indore, Madhya Pradesh filed six complaints against the appellants and respondent 2, charging them with non-payment of employers' contribution under the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 19 of 1952 (referred to herein as "the Act"). Respondent 2 is a Company called M/s. Burhanpur Tapti Mills Limited, of which appellants 1 to 3 were Directors and appellant 4 the Factory Manager. Under Section 17 of the Act, the Company was granted exemption from the operation of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 which is framed under the Act. That exemption was granted on the condition that the Company will transfer monthly collections of the Provident Fund of workers, inclusive of the employers' contribution, to be Board of Trustees of the Fund within 15 days of the close of each month. The allegation against the accused, about which there is no factual dispute, is that they did not pay the employers' contribution to the Fund from February, 1970 to June, 1971.