LexSRIKANTA DATTA NARASIMHARAJA WODIYAR versus ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, MYSORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c SRIKANTA DATTA NARASIMHARAJA WODIYAR v. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, MYSORE MAY 4,1993 [K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SABAi, JJ.] Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952: Sections 2 (e), (k), 14A. Employees Provident Funds Scheme 1952: Para 76. Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971. Employees Deposit linked Insurance Scheme 1976. Director of private company-Neither occupier nor manager- Whether D liable for prosecution under Section 14A of 1952 Act for violation of Provident Fund Scheme. The appellant was one of the Directors of a Company r~istered under the Companies Act. This company was also registered under the Factories Act and its object was to manufacture Motorcycles and its accessories. It had E a Managing Director, Joint Managing Director and Directors including the appellant for managing the establishment. The respondent- an Enforcement Officer, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's Office laid 18 complaints against six accused including the appellant (A-6) and the Company-employer, for the failure to deposit the F contribution for the period October to December 1990 to the Provident Fund Account under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976, offences punishable under Section 14A of the 1952 Act read with para 76 of the 1952 Scheme. G On the Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint, the appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in the High Court for quashilig the complaint as they did not contain the relevantaverments constituting offences against the appellant. It was contended that the appellant was a mere Director H · of the Company, that he was neither incharge of the company nor was 508 - S. D. NARSIMHARAJA v. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 509 responsible to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the A Schemes thereunder. Reliance was placed on the definition of'empfoyer' in Section 2 (e) of the Act and the liability that bad been fastened on the . Managing Director or the Manager or occupier of the establishment to abide by the Act and the Schemes. The High Court dismissed the applications. The appellant appealed to this Court and contended thatthe reading the definition of' employer' in section 2( e) of the A ct with Sectioni; 30, 14(1a) and para 31 of the Scheme, demonstrate that the employer in relation to the establishment means the owner or occupier of the factory which includes the Agent or the Manager of the factory under the Factories Act, that there was B an occupier and Manager recorded for the instant company, and that they C were Incharge of and were solely responsible to comply with the Act and the Schemes thereunder and that no specific averments have been made in the complaint making the appellant responsible for the management of the factory or the liability to comply with the Act and the Schemes. The complaint laid against the appellant was therefore illegal and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was vitiated by manifest error of law. On the question: whether a Director of a Private Company, who is· neither an occupier nor a manager can be prosecuted under Section 14(A) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for violation of the Provident Fund Scheme. Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD: (By the Court K. Ramaswamy & R.M. Sahai, JJ.) D E 1. The Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act F 1952 by Section 2(e) defines 'employer'. It is an inclusive· definition and consists of two clauses which are vide in their sweep. In Clause (i) are included not only owner or occupier but even the agent or manager. When it comes to establishments other than factory it is not confined to owner or occupier but to all these who have central or are responsible for the affairs of the company. It includes even director. Therefore, every such person who G has the ultimate control of the affairs of the company becomes employer Section 2(k) defines 'occupier' which means the person who has the ultimate control of the factory, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a Managing Agent, such agent shall be deemed to be the occupier of the factory. There- fore, by its extended definition its sweep is enlarged bringing within its scope the person who is incharge of or responsible for, the manage
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.