(1.) The facts giving rise to the presentation of this writ application are as under:
(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is a share-holder in the Dhalbhum Trades and Industries Ltd., petitioner No. 2, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (hereinafter to be referred to as the company), and the Managing Director of the firm of B. Chakravarty and Co. (Private) Ltd., which are the managing agents of the company. It appears that the company was required to submit monthly returns and deposit the contributions and administrative charges as provided by the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), read with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Scheme). As it was not regular in submitting the monthly returns and depositing the contributions, notices were issued to it from time to time for complying with the requirements, and it appears that subsequently the company made the deposits up to November, 1953. The deposits for the months of December, 1953 to May. 1954, were, however, not made, and monthly returns for the months of January to May, 1954, were not submitted. Consequently, a complaint was filed against petitioner No. 1 and cognizance was taken by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of offences under Section 14 of the Act read with paragraph 76 of the Scheme and Petitioner No. 1 was put on trial. He was convicted by the trial court, but on appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him because he held that sanction for the prosecution had not been given by any competent authority as required by the law and that the prosecution being in respect of more than three offences of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months, the trial was in contravention of Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the merit of the case, however, he definitely held that the facts disclosed in the case attracted the provisions of the Act and the Scheme as there were fifty or more persons employed in the company and it engaged in an industry specified in Schedule I of the Act. As the petitioners failed to deposit the contributions for subsequent periods, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, opposite party No. 1, filed fifteen petitions of complaint under Section 14 of the Act read with paragraph 76 of the Scheme for the period from June, 1954 to July, 1955. Some of the cases are pending before the Sub-divisional Officer, opposite party No. 2, and the others are pending before Mr. P. N. Sen, Magistrate, 1st Class, opposite party No. 3. It is also alleged that opposite party No. 1 is demanding contributions for subsequent periods also. In those circumstances the petitioners filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of an appropriate writ to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, and to restrain opposite party No. 1 from demanding or realising any contribution. The application has been opposed by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of opposite party No. 1 who has shown cause by filing a counter-affidavit.
(3.) The company, namely, petitioner No. 2, as the statement in the application shows, is carrying on business at Ghatsila in the district el Singhbhum in manufacture Of high pressure incandescent lamps, besides mines, fisheries, hat, etc.