ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the legal issues involved in these two writ petitions are interlinked, and the causes of action of the two writ petitions have their root in a common set of events.
(2.) THE petitioner before me in these two writ petitions has described himself as a "reputed industrialist and a director of several well -known companies." His main grievance, with which he has approached this Court is issuance of certificate proceeding against him for certain defaults made on account of deposit of provident fund dues of the employees of a company by the name of Bowreah Cotton Mills Co. Ltd, ("the Company" in short). The dues are on account of employer's contribution, employees' share and "R.O.W.", which term, I am informed implies recovery of wages. The petitioner's association with this company dates back to 1971, when he joined Bowreah Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. in a senior administrative position. Later on he became an additional director of this company. He was appointed as the managing director of the company on 11th April 1986, a post which he held till 28th August 1990. He claims to have had resigned on that date from the said post, as well as from the post of a director of the Company, as there was overall management change at that point of time, and the company was taken over by another group of industrialists. The company is an exempted establishment in terms of Section 17(1)(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 1952 Act, in short). In W. P. No. 3068 of 1993, the petitioner challenges the legality of a certificate issued under the provisions of Section 8C of the 1952 Act, in which the writ petitioner has been described as the managing director of the establishment. This writ petition was required to have been heard on the basis of reconstructed records, as it was reported to this Court by the department that the records in original were not readily available. In the certificate which is impugned in this writ petition (which I shall refer to as the first writ petition), the nature of the dues and the corresponding period has been shown as: - (Period) (i) Employees' share of Provident Fund 4/89 to 9/89, Contributions 2/90 to 11/90 ..........Rs.26,50,436.45 (ii) Employers' Share of Provident Fund 4/89 to 9/89, Contributions 2/90 to 11/90. .........Rs.52,33,470.45 (iii) R.O.W. 4/89 to 9/89 .......Rs.69,12,921.44 2/90 to 11/90. The writ petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 1910 of 2002, when he received a notice from the provident fund authorities dated 14th August 2002, requiring him to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him for malpractise and maladministration of the provident fund trust. In this notice, it was also specified that the establishment had defaulted in depositing an amount of Rs.2,04,06,359/ - to the trust and the account of the trust was not updated after 1990. The petitioner, by a communication dated 21st August 2002 claims to have had denied his obligation and liabilities vis -à -vis the operations of the establishment and the trust. On 19th August 2002, the petitioner was issued another notice to show cause as to why warrant of arrest shall not be issued against him for failure to pay amount of arrear specified in the certificate dated 11th February 1993, and another certificate dated 30th September 1997 (bearing no. 07/EPF/98 -99). In this notice, it was proposed to execute the said certificate. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Recovery Officer of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation; SRO; Howrah on 30th September 2002.
(3.) IN W.P. No. 1910 of 2002, which I shall describe in the later part of this judgment as the second writ petition, the petitioner has applied for quashing of both the certificates dated 11th February 1993 and 30th September 1997, as well as the two notices dated 14th August 2002 and 19th August 2002. An application has been filed in connection with this writ petition being G.A. No. 3882 of 2005 for vacating the interim order, which was passed in this matter on 10th September 2002. Mr. Soumya Majumdar, learned Advocate appeared in this matter on behalf of Bowreah Cotton Mills Company Ltd. Sangrami Sramik Union, who were allowed to intervene in this matter. He has argued in support of the certificate issued and the steps taken by the provident fund authorities in pursuance thereof. In addition, he has raised grievance on behalf of his clients that the provident fund authorities are not taking adequate steps to recover the legitimate dues of the employees by initiating proceeding for recovery of the dues from the assets of the establishment.;