STEEL INDUSTRIES KERALA LTD Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions are filed by the accused in various prosecutions launched by the Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, alleging violation of the statutory provisions punishable under Section 6 read with Sections 14(1A), 14(A) and 14 (C)(1) of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. During the pendency of the prosecutions, the petitioners herein moved this Court by filing W.P.No.19531/06, which resulted in Ext.P2 judgment dated 17.01.2008. While rendering that judgment, this Court had taken note of the peculiar facts involved in that case and directed the petitioners herein to file appropriate representations before the Government, which in turn was Review Petition No.326/17 in O.P.(Crl)No.37/17 and conn.cases directed to ascertain the amounts due under the Provident Fund contribution. It was also directed that the Government shall take steps for discharging the liability.

(2.) It was further directed that, if dues are discharged, respondents 4 to 7 may consider making an appropriate motion before the respective Magistrate for compounding the offences in terms of the provisions of the E.S.I. Act and the EPF Act, read with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the above, contributions payable by the employer were remitted. Thereafter, except the present 6 cases, all other cases were closed. It seems that before the Judicial Magistrate, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner filed an affidavit stating that in the absence of a specific provision under the statute, they were not in a position to move a petition for compounding the offences against the accused. However, according to the Enforcement Officer, Review Petition No.326/17 in O.P.(Crl)No.37/17 and conn.cases in spite of the above, the learned Magistrate was insisting for a composition in tune with Ext.P2 judgment. Hence the enforcement authority moved this Court. Those original petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 17.02.2017, holding that, if the statute does not prescribe for composition of the offence, no court can insist the complainant to compound the offence. It was noted that the petitioner therein could not be and was not expected to be compelled to compound the offence in the above circumstances. Writ petitions were disposed of directing the court below to proceed with the prosecution.

(3.) In fact, the petitioners herein remained absent before this Court, when the original petitions were taken up for consideration. The learned Senior counsel explained that the notices issued from this Court were served on the subsidiary company of the petitioners herein and it took sometime for proper communication between Review Petition No.326/17 in O.P.(Crl)No.37/17 and conn.cases the company and the Head office. This resulted in the absence of the petitioners before this Court. I am inclined to accept that explanation.