A.K.Nayak, J. - (1.) This revision application under sections 397 and 401 read with section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against an order dated 10.7.81, passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in case No. C/2088/81 taking cognizance of the offence under sections 8 5 (a) and (g) of the E.S.I. Act against the accused-opposite party no. 3 and also under the said section read with section 85A of the said Act, against the present petitioner and accused-opposite party no. 4, thereon issuing process against them.
(2.) Undisputedly, a complaint case as appearing from the petition of complaint Annexure 'A' was filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, by the complaint-opposite party no. 1, Employees State Insurance Corporation, against accused persons, being described as the Managing Director and Directors of M/s. Metro Engineering Works (P) Ltd., which is factory, alleging that these accused-persons, being the principal employers as defined in Clause 17 of section 2 of the E.S.I, failed to submit contribution cards for the period expiring 29.11.80, which should have been submitted within the grace period on or before 10.1.81 as required under section 40 regulation 26 of the E.S.I. Regulation, 1950. As already stated the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued process on taking cognizance against the petitioner and accused-opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Adhikary described as a director of the said factory in the petition of complaint that such proceeding is not maintainable against the petitioner as she is not the principal employer as defined in section 2(17) of the E.S.I. Act and further that being a lady, she was not in ultimate control over the affairs of the factory at the relevant time and had no knowledge about the alleged offence As such, it has been contended that the pending proceeding is liable to be quashed against her.;