RAVEENDRANATHAN PRABHA Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Styling the petitioner as one of the Directors of the Company, he has been proceeded against and prosecution proceedings have been initiated for the non payment of the dues under the Employees Provident Fund Act (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) The main argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had resigned from the company on 6.2013 and therefore, he could not be proceeded against for the non payment of the dues under the Act by that company. In these cases, the period, for which the claim has been forwarded by the Enforcement Officer, are with regard to the period prior to the resignation of the petitioner. Therefore, the said argument is not legally sustainable.

(3.) Another argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was only an independent Director and he could not be proceeded against for non payment of dues of the company since an independent Director is not in charge of the day to day affairs of the company. It is a question of fact which has to be proved through evidence. Merely by styling himself as an independent Director, it cannot be said that he should be absolved from the liability. These arguments have to be taken before the court below at appropriate stage. Matters being so, these Crl. M.C.s are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up these contentions before the trial court at appropriate stage.