9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ongst others, is that the petitions of complaint have been filed out of time. Fourteen cases, namely, C/311 to C/324 were started for non-deposit of Provident Fund Amounts for the months of October, 1973 to November, 1974. The: petitions of complaint in all the cases were filed on 10.1.76. Relying on the provisions of section 468 (2) (b) of the Code it is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitions of complaint in all these cases ought to have been filed within one year from the date of the alleged offence. 2. In support of his contention Mr i)e, learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to a Bench decision reported in 1978 C.H.N. 293 (M/s Wire Machinery-Manufacturing Corpn. Ltd. Ors). In this case, first o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of complaint were filed on 10.1.76. That being so, the petitions were filed within the prescribed time. In these three Rules Mr. De contends that for alleged violation of nonpayment of the amount of Provident Fund, the Company is only responsible. According to the provisions of Section 14A (1) (2) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Company can be held liable; otherwise for the alleged offence committed by a Company simply because some persons are Directors, they ear not be held liable. The petitioner has been made a party simply because he is one of the Directors of the Company in support of his contention. 4. Mr. De first relies on a Supreme Court decision reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2162 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. (P) Ltd. and others v. Corporation of Calcutta), This was a case under the Prevention of Food Adulterator, Act. Section 17 of this Act is in similar terms with section 14A of the Employees Provident Fund Act It has been held in this case under Section 17 a company has been made primarily liable, to make other persons vicariously liable, it has to be shown that such persons were in charge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of its day to day business. In the absence of any mention in the petition of persons were concerned in the carrying on of the day to day business of the company process could not have been issued against them. 7. Mr. De draws our attention to the petitions of complaint, in paragraph 3, it has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
