ANDHRA SINTERS LTD Vs. P F INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing different prosecutions launched by the first respondent against the petitioners, viz. , Andhra Sinters Limited, represented by its Managing Director, P. Bhima Raju.

(2.) IN this batch of cases Mr. R. Kameswara Rao vehemently contended that the first petitioner-company has become a sick unit and that the matters are under consideration by SIER, hence these prosecutions launched for recovery of various amounts due under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Scheme thereunder should be quashed. He claims that under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, viz. , Act 1 of 1986, there is suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. , and as the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Section 22, these prosecutions are not maintainable. He further contends that as early as May 29, 1990, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner issued a Circular No. P. R. Cell/26 (1) of 1989 under which the Provident Fund Commissioner and the Central Board of Trustees considered this matter and evolved a scheme of granting instalments for arrears of provident fund dues. In view of that circular, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is not justified in launching prosecutions and he should be granted instalments in accordance with the circular. He claims that by reason of the circular also, the prosecutions now launched are not maintainable. He further contends that about 6 to 7 cases have been filed for non-deposit of administrative charges. According to him, for non-deposit of administrative charges, no prosecution can be filed. A prosecution can be launched only for non-payment of contributions. The liability to pay administrative charges arises only when the contribution is paid, as per para 38 of the Scheme of 1952. Hence, the prosecutions launched in S. T. C. No. 64, S. T. C. No. 65, S. T. C. No. 63 and S. T. C No. 58 are not maintainable. Mr. Kameswara Rao further contends that there are a few instances of two prosecutions being filed for the same arrears. Certainly, the Provident Fund Authorities are not entitled to launch two prosecutions for failure to pay the same amount.

(3.) CONSIDERING the importance of the questions involved in these petitions filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, very elaborate arguments were advanced at the stage of admission itself. I have given my careful consideration to the various arguments advanced in accordance with the statutory provisions both under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as well as the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. I shall deal with each one of the arguments seriatim.