T.L. SHARMA Vs. RAM PARKASH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Shri T. L. Sharma, Provident Fund Inspector, Amritsar, against the judgment of the Judicial) Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar, dated July 19, 1976, in a complaint filed by the Appellant under para 14 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) against Shri Ram Parkash Bali,, proprietor of Messrs Bali Woollen Mills, Kashmir Road, Amritsar, and the said Firm. The allegation in the complaint was that the Respondents had failed to produce the attendance register, wage register, cash book/ledgers of the Firm in spite of being called upon to do so and had, thus, committed violation of the provisions of Sub -section (2) (b) of Section 13 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the said contravention being punishable under Section 14 of the Act read with Para 76 of the Scheme, mentioned above. The Appellant -complainant prayed that the Respondents be summoned to stand their trial for the above contravention and punished according to law. The Respondents, In consequence of this complaint were summoned and were tried. After considering the material produced before him, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, found that no case was made out against the Respondents. He accordingly dismissed the complaint and acquitted the Respondents. This is the order of the learned Magistrate against which the present appeal is directed.

(2.) WITH the aid of Mr. C. D. Dewan, learned Counsel for the Appellant, we have been taken through the record of the case including the deposition of Shri T. L. Sharma,, Provident Fund Inspector (P.W. 1). The said witness gave the history of the matter during the period of his posting at Amritsar, i.e., from July 26, 1971 to March 6, 1973. The witness stated that on August 7, 1971, he issued notice to the Respondent -Firm for producing their entire record so that it may be examined with a view to find out whether the Act is applicable to their Factory or not. A reply was received from Mr. Ram Parkash Bali owner of the Factory, - -vide letter dated August 11, 1971, that the records of the Firm were in their Head Office at Bombay and they would produce after getting the same from there. The witness further deposed that in spite of several opportunities being afforded to the Firm, they did not make available the record. Therefore, the witness referred the matter to his superior, i.e., Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh. The said Officer then issued a registered letter to the Firm on September 30, 1972,, directing them to produce the record before Shri T. L. Sharma Inspector. Shri T. L. Sharma, P.W. also averred that he visited the Factory premises of the Respondents on December 16, 1972, January 2, 1973 and February 6, 1973, but on all these dates, neither the proprietor appeared before him, nor was the record produced on the pretext that the proprietor was away. Shri Sharma then made a report regarding this matter to his superior officer, - -vide letter Exhibit PW 1/C, dated February 21, 1973, in which he mentioned about his visits to the Factory of the Respondents on the three dates noticed above and the non -production of the record before him by the representatives of the Respondents. All that could be elicited in the cross -examination of Shri Sharma is,, that he could not say as to how many workers were working in the Factory, nor did he see the number of such persons actually working there when he visited the Factory premises. He explained the circumstance by deposing that on his visits, the behaviour of the Respondents was not proper. The testimony of Shri Sharma is all the evidence that has been produced by the complainant.

(3.) MR . C. D. Dewan, learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate and has contended that the acquittal of the Respondent (Shri Ram Parkash Bali) is based merely on the fact that there was nothing on the record to show that the number of employees working in the Firm was more than twenty, attracting the application of the Act, to the said Factory. The argument is that the gravamen of the charge for which the Respondents were tried is their non -production of the record which was required for the purpose of ascertaining the very fact as to whether the Act was applicable to the Factory or not and it was beyond the competence of the Magistrate to consider or to give a finding in the present proceedings as to whether the Act was applicable or not, nor its this fact material for the purpose of deciding as to whether the Respondents had violated the relevant provisions of the Act and the Scheme.