ARUN CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the issue involved in all these 35 writ applications is the same and similar and the parties are also same, all these matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Through these writ applications, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of all the complaint cases mentioned above including the order dated 26.3.2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Section 14(2), 14A and 14AA of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur against the petitioners in all the complaint cases whereof allegations are the same but the period of alleged contravention is different.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that officers of the Provident Fund Department visited the premises of the firm, namely, M/s. Textile Centre (petitioner No. 10) and M/s. Dulhin, (petitioner No. 11) both partnership firm to which other petitioners are the partners. Since partners of both the firms were common, therefore, officers of Provident Fund Department took both the firms as one firm where number of employees were found to be 21 and as such the provisions of the Act is applicable to the said firms. Thereafter Assessing Officer, vide its order dated 13.4.1999 found the firm to be liable to make payment of certain liabilities under the Act which was sought to be reviewed in a review application filed under Section 7B of the Act which got dismissed on 29.5.1999. Thereupon petitioner No. 10, M/s. Textile Centre challenged the said order before this Court, vide

(3.) BEING aggrieved with the order taking cognizance in each of those cases, the petitioners have preferred the aforesaid applications.