ARUP KUMAR PAL CHAUDHURY Vs. SATYESH CHANDRA BAGCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurance inspector has filed a petition of complaint alleging that the three accused are the managing directors of M/s. International Remedies Private Ltd., having its factory at 66/40, Parui Kutcha Road, Calcutta. The accused are principal employers within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the E.S.I. Act. The accused failed to submit the contribution cards. They were, therefore, prosecuted under Section 85(a) and (g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, read with Section 4(i)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1975, and for violation of Regulation 26 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950. Hence this rule.

(2.) The learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that the petition of complaint shows that M/s. International Remedies Private Ltd. is a factory. There is no averment that the directors were responsible for the supervision and control of the factory or that they are in actual possession of the contribution cards. Moreover, the petitioner who is one of the accused, tendered his resignation as director in March, 1973. After such resignation he is no more liable for any offence. The case of Mahalderam Tea Estate [1979] 49 Camp Cas 529 (Cal) has been cited to show that since there are no materials in the petition of complaint from which the Magistrate could be satisfied that the accused took part in the running of of the business of the factory, the prosecution should be quashed.

(3.) The learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant, opposite party, has stated that the prosecution was rightly initiated.