STATE Vs. JAGRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in a case under Section 14 (2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952.

(2.) The respondent Jagraj was the managing director and occupier of the Regmal Mills Straw Board Manufacturing Company, Saharanpur. According to the prosecution the aforesaid company was engaged in manufacturing grinding wheels and had in their employment 50 or more persons with effect from 1-1-54 and they were not making contribution towards provident fund of the employees and paying administrative charges. They were further required to submit monthly returns as prescribed under the Scheme, and as they failed to comply with these provisions they were liable to conviction under Section 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, as also under paras 76 (a), (c) and (e) of the Provident Fund Scheme. The prosecution was launched after obtaining the required sanction of the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. The respondent pleaded not guilty and inter alia raised two grounds (1) that the Act and Scheme did not apply to the Regmal Mills as they were not manufacturing any goods, and (2) that the Regmal Mills had not contributed towards the provident fund during this period nor had they paid administrative charges and submitted the monthly return because the Act did not apply to the Mills. The trial court had convicted the respondent, and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-. An appeal was filed and the appellate court has acquitted the accused.

(3.) The term 'occupier of a factory' has been defined in Section 2(k) of the Act as the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory, and there cannot be any doubt that Jagraj was the occupier in that sense. There appears to have been a mistake in writing the name; instead of 'Jagraj' 'Tegraj' has been mentioned. But since Jagraj had appeared we do not think that that would make any difference now.