ARAVINDA PARIMALA WORKS Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE in these petitions filed by the petitioners accused, facts involved, grounds urged, relief claimed and parties are similar they are taken together.

(2.) THE case of respondent-complainant in all these petitions is : The first petitioner-first accused namely, M/s. Aravinda parirnala Works at Mysore is an establishment within the meaning of the Employees' provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ace') and one H. S. Rao (shown as representing the first petitioner in these petitions now), is the Managing Partner whereas, other persons are its partners. All the said persons are shown in Form 5-A as persons in-charge of and responsible to the first petitioner for the conduct of its business under the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme. But, in spite of request, insurance/provident fund contributions due in respect of the employees of the first petitioner and required to be paid for different period (s) within stipulated time under the employees' Deposit Linked Insurance scheme, were not paid as shown in complaints and thereby committed offence under that Scheme read with the Employees' provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. So, complaints were filed on 27-10-1999 by the respondent-complainant. After cognizance was taken, process came to be issued against them in all the complaints. However, Contributions due were paid in the year 2000 or 2001. So, challenging the issue of process against them, petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) AFTER notice to the respondent-complainant heard both sides. It was vehemently argued for the petitioners-accused that simply because in Form 5-A, they (all partners) have been shown as the persons in charge and responsible for conducting business of the establishment, they cannot be held responsible without establishing that they are in- charge and responsible personally in the matter of conducting the business of the Company, as held by this Court in the case of M/s. Anantharamalah Woollen factory v. The State (1981 Lab IC 538), when they were not responsible for the violation as they were not in-charge of and conducting business of the establishment and, that as the Contributions due to be paid have been already remitted, it is not necessary to proceed further against them particularly when the first petitioner-Company is running under loss and that as the non-payment of Contributions in time was due to severe financial problem faced by the establishment but remitted already in the year 2000 or 2001, the proceedings initiated against them by the respondent-complainant require to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent complainant supported the initiation of proceedings as, according to her, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are in accordance with law and do not suffer from any infirmity and hence, they cannot be quashed. Perused the records carefully.