VIJAYAKRISHNA K T Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is considerable force in the submission of Sri. K. Kasturi, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners, that the notices of demand to defaulters Annex. A & B, issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for short the 'Act', is contrary to the provisions of the said Act, hence illegal. M/s. Inter-Active Infonet Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in the State of Karnataka, consisted of 4 directors of which, one Sadashiva Rao was the Chairman while petitioners along with another Rajaram Khandige were directors. The said company, an establishment, when covered under the provisions of the Act, submitted form No. 5A under paragraph 36A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, for short the 'Scheme', furnishing against Column No. 8, the names and addresses of the directors as well as against Column No. 11, the names and addresses of the persons incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment as K. Rajaram Khandige and another T. Bhaskar.

(2.) It appears that due to default in the remittance of contributions led to orders for recovery of damages and contribution. The failure on the part of the company to make payment as demanded, led to notices of demands - Annex. A & B.

(3.) A bare perusal of the definition of the term 'employer under Section 2(e)(ii) of the Act discloses that in relation to an establishment, the 'employer' means, person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent.