- (1.) Sri Joy Saha, learned Senior Counsel appears for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were inducted as Directors of the Company in issue namely, India Steam Laundry (Private) Limited as Directors between the period April, 2011 to October, 2011, with the exception of the petitioner No. 3, who was a Director on and from September, 2006. Sri Saha further argues that although the petitioners were in no way connected with the affairs of the said company between February, 2004 to April, 2011, by an adjudication dated 11th March, 2014 the Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner quantified the penalty and damages under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short The 1952 Act) and, as a consequence of such quantification, the petitioners have been summoned to appear before the Recovery Officer.
(2.) Sri Saha further submits that the legal status of the petitioners qua the said company has been settled by a pronouncement of an Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court dated 6th February, 2014 and, under such pronouncement the petitioners, being the dissenting respondents before the Hon'ble Single Bench, were restrained from holding out as Directors of the said company. Sri Saha also points out from the records of the writ petition that by an order dated 18th April, 2016, the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 6th January, 2016 has been upheld and the matter has been remanded to the Hon'ble Single Bench for further hearing.
(3.) The grievance raised by Sri Saha in this writ petition therefore relates to the effort on the part of the respondents / Provident Fund Authority (for short PFA) to deal with the petitioners with regard to the outstanding Provident Fund liabilities of the said Company in spite of the fact that it was not the petitioners who were connected to the affairs of the said Company for the period in issue and, such is established by the course of litigation till date before this Hon'ble Court.;