INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE,J. - (1.) In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused -persons who are admittedly the Directors of M/s. People Engineering and Motor Works Limited having its registered office at No. 12, J. N. Mukherjee Road, Howrah, have assailed the prosecution filed by the opposite party/ the Employees State Insurance Corporation for contravention of Section 85(g) of the Employs State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter being referred to an Act of 1948). This offence was committed in the year 1983 and Complaint Case No. C -406 of 1984 was registered and the said case is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court at Calcutta, under Section 85(g) of the said Act of 1948.
(2.) The fact relevant for the consideration of this criminal revision can be stated in brief thus: That it was claimed by the complainant that it was detected by the complainant party that even though the accused persons being the principal employers' as defined in Section 2(17) of the Act of 1948 did not deposit both the employers' and employees' contribution which was deducted from the salaries of the employees did not deposit the same within the prescribed period and thereby this revisionists /petitioners were prosecuted under Section 85 g read with Section 4(i)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Amendment Act, 1975. The said complaint was registered as Complaint Case No.406 of 1984 which is now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 5th Court Calcutta. The accused persons made a prayer before the said court for their acquittal on the ground that they are not the principal employers under Section 2(17) of the said Act of 1948. I get from the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the learned said Metropolitan Magistrate that this petitioners had already paid Rs.66,000/ - pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16.07.1982 in C.O. No.7203 (W) of 1982 and FMAT No.2192 of 1982 dated 15.09.1982 and that this matter came up before this Hon'ble court in CRR No.2165 of 2001 under Section 482 of the CR.P.C and that was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate to raise the points as mentioned in the revisional application. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate as per the order referred to above held that to decide wither the accused persons are liable for contravention is a matter of trial and that cannot be decided at this stage. This order has been assailed in this revisional application vide paragraph no.11 of the application.
(3.) Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 1998 C. Cr. LR (SC) 396 (Employees State Insurance Corporation -vs - S. K. Aggarwal & Ors.) wherein the Apex Court took into consideration Section 2(17) and 40 of the said Act of 1948 and held in paragraph -9 that the definition of 'Principal Employer' under the said Act of 1948 cannot cover the Directors of the Company and actually, the Company is responsible and can be treated as Principal Employer, if the Company is the owner of the factory.;