R. SUBRAMANIAM, PROPRIETOR, LEO MERCANTILE CORPORATION Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, MADRAS. (INSURANCE INSPECTOR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C. No. 2810 of 1986 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, has preferred this petition under S. 482. Crl. P.C., to quash the said proceeding against him. The respondent, namely, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras, filed a complaint against the petitioner under S. 85(a) of the Employed State Insurance Act, 1948. The allegations stated In the complaint are that the petitioner herein is liable to pay under S. 40 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act both the contribution; namely, employer's share of contribution and employees' contribution in respect of every employee in the first instance, that he is required to submit to the Corporation the returns and particulars and that he is to maintain Registers as per S. 44 of the ESI Act read with various provisions of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1930. It is further alleged that every such contribution is payable under the Act within 21 days from the expiry of the 'Wage period' in which the contribution fell due or within the stipulated period as laid down in the order issued by the competent authority under S. 45A of the Act. Since the petitioner accused failed to comply with the statutory obligation, the complainant, namely, the respondent, determined the contribution payable for the period from 1st April, 1977 to 3/84 as Rs. 7,411.50 by its order dated 6th November, 1985. The accused failed to comply with the statutory order dated 6th November, 1985 issued under the provisions of S. 45A of the Act and that he has committed an offence under S. 85(a) of the Act punishable under S. 85(i) of the Act. After obtaining sanction from the Regional Director, the said complaint is filed.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner in this petition is that as per S. 86(3) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made in writing in respect thereof within six months of the date from which the offence is alleged to have been committed. In the instant case, the allegation is that the contribution 19 payable for the period 1st April, 1977 to March, 1984, for which the complaint was filed only on 5th May, 1986. Since the complaint as filed after a period of two years from the date of occurrence ,it is barred by limitation. Further, the amount due for each 'wage period' has not been mentioned and the complaint is vague on material particulars.' On the other hand, Mr. P. Rajamanickam, the Learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that since the petitioner failed to furnish the returns, the amount was determined under S. 45A only on 6th November, 1985, that the petitioner was asked to pay the amount within 15 days of the service of the notice, that this complaint as filed within six months thereafter and that, hence, the complaint is in time.

(3.) TIME for payment of contribution is provided under Regulation 31 framed under the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 which reads as follows: