P.C. Barooah, J. - (1.) These three rules are directed against orders dated 21-12-71, 19-11-71 and 21-12-71 passed in C. R. Cases Nos. 49/71, 71/71 and 73/71, respectively, by Sri S. K. Sinha, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kurseong, taking cognizance and issuing summons against the petitioners under Section 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, read with para. 76 of the scheme framed under the Act.
(2.) Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the directors of the Mahalderam Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. having its registered office at 14, Chandney Chowk Street, Calcutta-13, and owning tea gardens including Mahalderam Tea Estate in the District of Darjeeling. Sri D. N, Prodhan, Provident Fund Inspector, West Bengal, filed three complaints in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kurseong, wherein it was alleged, inter alia, that the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are the directors of Mahalderam Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. and hence responsible for the conduct of the business and management of the company and all its establishments and are as such legally bound to pay to the provident fund the employer's-cum-members' contributions together with the administrative charges within the statutory period, have failed to do so for three different months as mentioned in the complaints.
(3.) The submission made by Mr. D. P. Chaudhury, appearing for the petitioners, relates to the interpretation of Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter the Act). According to Mr. Chaudhury, before process can be issued against a director of a company for an offence committed under the provisions of the Act, it has to be established, that the director was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. A bald statement such as in the petitions of complaint filed in the aforesaid cases that merely because they were directors they were liable for the conduct of the business and management of the company would not bring them within the purview of Section 14A of the Act and, as such, the cognizance taken against the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is bad in law and without jurisdiction.;