N.K.Batabyal, J. - (1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company and its Partners have come before this Court for the following, amongst other, reliefs : (a) A writ of and/or order and/or directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding and/or directing the respondents and/or their agents and/or their servants and/or each of them not to proceed with further the criminal prosecutions as detailed in Annexure "A" and not to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the subsequent periods as per Annexure "B" to the writ petition under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1975 and Employees Deposit Link Insurance Scheme, 1976 and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder; (b) A writ and/or directions in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents from giving any effect or further effects to the criminal prosecution detailed in Annexure "A". (c) A writ of and/or order and/or directions in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to transmit or send to this Hon'ble Court all records and proceedings being Annexure "A" and "B" respectively and all order or orders so that justice may be done by quashing and/or cancelling the same. (d) A writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of prohibition; prohibiting the respondents from giving any further effect to the proceedings ("A" and "B") and other reliefs.
(2.) It is stated that the petitioner firm due to acute financial stringency for labour unrest and other economic factors could not comply with the statutory obligations from 1979 in making compliance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act and other related acts. For non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the P.F. & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 criminal prosecution has been launched against the writ petitioners as per Annexure "A". From Annexure "B" it appears that the total dues from the petitioner company comes to Rs. 1,70,297/- for the period from July, 1990 to May, 1994. Criminal action under Annexure "A" was brought due to failure of the company to pay contribution for the month of July, 1979. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the amounts which were demanded as dues under the Act were determined not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. It has been further stated that the petitioners have, however, cleared all the dues as demanded without proper determination under section 17A of the Employees Provident Fund etc. Act, though not in time. According to the petitioners, the criminal prosecution is totally misconceived. The main objective behind the Employees' Provident Fund etc. Act is to safeguard the interests of the employees so that the employees may not suffer. When the dues payable to the funds had been paid and the interest of the employees had not been affected although there was delay in payment of the installments, the prosecution of the petitioners becomes a ritual specially when they have paid interest for the delayed payment. The petitioners are willing to clear up all dues by making payment of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in a lump and thereafter by monthly installments of Rs. 5,000/- along with current payments till the arrears are liquidated. The respondents are alleged to be threatening the petitioners with criminal prosecution for non-payment of the dues as per Annexure "B" to the writ petition. The writ petitioners are willing to pay the entire amount demanded by installments as stated above with a default clause for enforcement of the payment. It has been further submitted that the criminal proceeding is pending for about last 14 years and therefore, this is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and this is liable to be quashed.
(3.) In Affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that since in its inception the petitioner firm failed and neglected to comply with the provisions of the P.F. etc. Act (Act 19 of 1952) and the Scheme framed thereunder regularly. As a result, several cases had to be instituted against the petitioner firm under different provisions of the said Act 19 of 1952 including prosecution under sections 406/409 of I.P.C. The alleged difficulties in running the business are baseless. The instant prosecution have been launched against the petitioner company as they are in default in payment of their dues under the Act 19 of 1952. The writ petition is not maintainable as framed.;