CHOUDHARY COLOUR COMPANY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of 36 criminal miscellaneous cases under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seek quashing of the criminal prosecution of the petitioners in 36 complaint cases filed against them by the Inspector Employees Provident Fund-O.P. No. 2 including the order dated 14-5-1991 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 14 (1A) and 14 (1B) of the Employees, Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act) against them in each of the complaint cases. Since common questions of law and fact have been raised, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) M/s Chaudhary Color Company-petitioner No. 1 (for short, the Company) is a small partnership firm and petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are partners of the firm. The Company bring dry color from outside Mahnar and after wraping them in small packet (Puria), push them in the market for sale. The Regional Provident Funds Commissioner granted sanction for prosecution of -the petitioners for failure to submit the statutory return in Form-5 and consolidated statement of contribution in Form 12-A (R) as well as Annual Return in Form 3-A (R) and Form 6-A (R) and on the basis of such sanction orders, O.P. No. 2 filed as many as 42 complaints including the present 36 complaints against the petitioners under Sections 14 (1A) and 14 (1B) and Para 76-D of the E.P. Act Scheme 1992 read with Section 14 (2) and 14 (A) of the Act. A copy of the complaint petition including the sanction order in Criminal Misc. No. 6090 of 1992 are Annexure 9 and 9/A which was filed for the period February, 1981 to April, 1981. Similar complaint petitions and sanction orders for different periods have been filed in other complaint cases. Separate orders taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint petitions were passed on one and the same day, i.e. 14-5-1991 which are under challenge in these applications.

(3.) Shri Shivaji Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the petitioners Company was not an establishment within the meaning of the Act and the Company had raised such a dispute before the comeptent authority which dispute was still pending and hence, the prosecution of the petitioners Company was incompetent. The Company is said to employ both regular and casual employees and at no point of time, their total strength had ever exceeded 16 to 17 persons in a day. Section 1 of the Act reads as follows: