9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether criminal proceedings can be instituted u/s 14 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against an establishment exempted u/s 17 of the Act for contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. Summary: Issue 1: Applicability of Section 14 to Exempted Establishments The appellants, connected with the management of an exempted establishment, M/S Shri Subhlaxmi Mills Ltd., were charged with failing to pay contributions to the provident fund trust, leading to criminal complaints under Sections 14(1A), 14(2), 14(2A), 14A(1), 14A(2), and Paragraph 76 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The appellants argued that Section 6 was not applicable to exempted establishments and thus, no proceedings under Section 14 could be initiated. The Metropolitan Magistrate rejected this application, and the Additional Sessions Judge upheld this decision, stating that Section 6 covers all establishments, including exempted ones, and Section 14(2A) clearly applies to exempted establishments for any breach of conditions under Section 17. Issue 2: Interpretation of Penalty and Applicability of Section 14(2A) The court examined whether the failure to contribute to the provident fund by an exempted establishment could attract penal provisions of Section 14. It was noted that Section 14(2A) specifically applies to exempted establishments for contraventions of conditions under Section 17 if no other penalty is provided. The court held that the cancellation of exemption u/s 17(4) is not a penalty within the meaning of Section 14(2A). The cancellation is a procedural consequence, not a punishment. Thus, Section 14(2A) is applicable for failure to comply with the conditions of exemption. Issue 3: Applicability of Section 14(1A) to Exempted Establishments The court considered whether Section 14(1A) applies to exempted establishments. It was argued that the terms "fund" and "scheme" should be interpreted broadly to include private schemes operated by exempted establishments. The court agreed, stating that the context and legislative intent behind the Act support a broader interpretation. Therefore, failure to contribute to a private scheme by an exempted establishment amounts to a contravention of Section 6, punishable under Section 14(1A). Conclusion: The court concluded that Sections 14(1A) and 14(2A) are applicable to the facts of the case, and the trial court should proceed with the trial for these offences against the appellants. Other sections like 14(2), 14A(1), 14A(2), and Paragraph 76 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, do not apply. The appeals were disposed of with these directions.
|
