HOWRAH MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SAMIR KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant application is for quashing of the proceeding being C/1853/2000 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta.

(2.) A complaint under section 14(2A) read with section 14A(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was lodged against the petitioners by the Inspector of Employees' Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was alleged that the petitioners being employers failed tq comply with certain requirements in respect of the said establishment:- (a) to transfer monthly Provident Fund contributions amounting to Rs. 1,56,994/- (Employee's Share) and Rs. 1,08, 547/- (Employer's Share) and Rs. 17,19,794/- to the Board of Trustees for the months of November, 1998 to January, 1999 in contravention of the relevant conditions and exemption read with Government of India Notification issued under subsection (3) of section 17 of the said Act and (b) to pay Inspection charges amounting to Rs. 778/- for the month of January, 1999 in contravention of the provision of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 17 of the said Act read with the relevant Government of India Notification issued in this regard.

(3.) Challenging the maintainability of the case, the petitioners made an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate with a prayer for dropping of the proceeding. It was contended before the Court below that the petitioners were restrained from depositing Employees' Provident Fund dues in view of the order of restraint passed by the Hon'ble Court in connection with C. S. No. 384/98. It was also contended that they approached the Employees Provident Fund Authorities for permission to pay the dues by instalments. On such prayer for depositing the dues in instalments being granted by the Provident Fund Authorities, the entire dues were deposited by them. In view of the payment of the entire dues, the petitioners prayed for dropping of the proceeding. The prayer for dropping of the proceeding, however, was challenged by the State.