LAWS(CAL)-2021-8-7

SATISH KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

Decided On August 18, 2021
SATISH KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails an order passed under Section 8-B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1985 ('the Act') issued by the Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, which is in the nature of a warrant of arrest.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner is a director of one Shri Govinda Glass Works Limited ('the establishment'). In view of statutory defaults committed by the establishment towards payment of their provident fund dues, an amount of Rs.44,04,178/- became due and payable by the establishment to the respondent Provident Fund Authorities. It is in connection with those recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent Provident Fund Authorities that the impugned warrant of arrest dated 26th September, 2006 was issued by them against the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner assails the impugned warrant of arrest primarily on the ground that before issuing such warrant it was incumbent on the respondent authorities to initiate all other modes of recovery against the establishment prior to issuance of a warrant of arrest against the petitioner. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that it is only after such recovery proceedings have failed that the respondent authorities could have issued the impugned warrant against the petitioner. This is the only point raised in this petition. The petitioner also relies on the decisions reported in 2005 (1) LLN 745 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Hyderabad and Another Vs. M/s Decan Foam Plastics (Private), Ltd. Narsapur and (2004) 3 LLJ 952 D.R. Venkatesh vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hyderabad, and Another to contend that the personal liability of a director cannot be straightway attracted and an order of arrest can only be issued in the event that the assets of the establishment are found to be insufficient to meet the dues payable by the establishment to the respondent authorities.