REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SONODYNE TELEVISION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dtd. 28/2/2000 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Case No.C-119 of 1996, thereby acquitting the appellant of the charge under Ss. 14(1A), 14(2), 14A(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

(2.) Opposite party no.1 the company was covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, opposite party no.2 being its Director, alleged to have been a person in charge of the said company, responsible for the conduct of its business, required to comply the provisions of the said Act and the scheme framed thereunder. Contentiously opposite party no.2 being the employer failed to pay the contributions for the month of December, 1991 in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 6 of the said Act along with administrative charges for the month of December, 1991 in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme 1952 and therefore committed offences under 14(1A), 14(2) read with 14A(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with paragraphs 76 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. It was further alleged the opposite party no.2 was in-charge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the company during the relevant period and had committed an offence under Sec. 14(1A) read with Sec. 14A(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. As such he was punishable under Sec. 14AA of the said Act.

(3.) The provisions of Sec. 14(1A) and also Sec. 14(1B) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provided as follows:-