BISWANATH CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is pointed out from the Recovery Certificate contained in Annexure 'C' that the dues that were sought to be recovered were for the period October, 1989 till February, 1992. In respect of these dues the Provident Fund Authority had purported to proceed against the petitioner on the ground that he was the Chairman of the Establishment. From the resolution contained in Annexure 'A' it is pointed out that the petitioner was not the Chairman but the Managing Director of the Establishment and that one Mr. Arindam Kar was appointed Managing Director of the company with effect from October 18, 1989 and the petitioner ceased to be the Managing Director of the company with effect from October 18, 1989. The dues for the month of October, 1989, was payable on November 15, 1989. Thus it is contended that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for payment of contribution of the Provident Fund dues for the period in respect whereof recovery is being sought for and during which the said Mr. Kar was the Managing Director.

(2.) It is also contended that the petitioner was not the occupier as defined in the said Act and liable for payment therefor in the absence of any notice served under the Factories Act. Therefore, proceedings cannot be proceeded against the petitioner.

(3.) It is further contended that for the self-same dues a criminal proceeding have since been initiated against the petitioner which also cannot be proceeded with, as against him.