GUPTA R K L Vs. RAM BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State Government against the order passed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, by which he set aside the conviction of the respondents under Para. 76 (c) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, read with Section 14 (2) of the Employees' Provident Panda Act, 1952, and acquitted them.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are not In dispute. Bijli Cotton Mills, Hathras is a factory covered by Section 1 (3) (a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the scheme), are applicable to it. Respondent 1 is the managing director of the factory, respondent 2 is its attorney and occupier and respondent 3 is the factory manager. They did not submit to the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner. Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, monthly consolidated returns in form 12 for the months of March, April and May 1964 as required by Para. 38 (2) of the scheme. On 19 April 1965, R. K. L. Gupta. Provident Funds Inspector, Uttar Pradesh, filed a complaint against the respondents, after obtaining a sanction from the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur. The Subdivisional Magistrate, Hath found the respondents guilty of an offence punishable under Para. 76 (c) of the scheme read with Section 14 (2) of the Act and sentence such of them to a fine of Rs. 250 and in default of payment of the fine to simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On appeal by the respondents, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, held that the respondents had not contravened the provision for the infringement of which they were changed because the factory had been exempted from the operation of the schema by the Control Provident Funds Commissioner by virtue of the authority conferred upon him by the Central Government. The learned Judge also held that the sanction of the proper authority had not been obtained under Section 14 (3) of the Act and the complaint was, therefore, barred from cognizance.

(3.) IT was admitted in the Courts below as well as before us that the appropriate Government in relation to the factory is the Central Government. It is also not in dispute that the Central Provident Funds Commissioner, in exercise of the power conferred upon him by the Central Government, exempted the factory from the operation of the scheme under Section 17 (1) of the Act. What was contended on behalf of the prosecution was that by notification dated 20 June 1953 the Central Government directed that the powers exercisable by it under Section 17 (1) shall also be exercisable by the Uttar Pradesh Government and that by virtue of the power conferred under that notification the Uttar Pradesh Government cancelled the exemption by notification dated 10 February 1964.