SHIVRAM M Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the third accused in c. c. Nos. 3865 of 1996, 3866 of 1996 and 3867 of 1997 pending on the file of the court of jmfc ii court, shimoga, for the offences under sections 14-a and 14 (1-a) of the employees' provident funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the act"), read with para 76 (d) of the employees' provident funds scheme, 1952.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments found in all these complaints against the petitioner concerned is that, he is a director of a-1/company and he was responsible for the conduct of business and that himself, a-2 and a-4 are required to comply with all the Provisions of the act. He submitted that the said averments in the complaint are not sufficient to make the present petitioner who is a-3, vicariously liable for the abovesaid offences committed by a-1/company represented by the assistant general manager. Elaborating his arguments, he has drawn my attention to the definition of "employer" given under Section 2 (e) of the Act, which defines as follows:

(3.) ACCORDING to him, since the respondent (sic) is a factory and the assistant general manager of the said factory is named as the manager of the said factory, he alone can be prosecuted for the offences alleged under sections 14-a and 14 (1-a) of the act. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation V. S. K. Aggarwal, AIR 1998 SC 2676 : 1998 (6) SCC 288 : 1998-11- llj-794 wherein it was held as under (headnote of air):