Debi Prasad Sircar, J. - (1.) All these revisional applications are taken up together as these are between the same parties and over the questions of fact and law and as such governed by this Single Judgment.
(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is the firm of which the other petitioners are partners. The firm commenced this business in 1949. The case of the petitioners is that till December 1976 the firm did not reach the numeric strength of its employees for coverage of the provisions of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since December 1976 the petitioner firm came under the coverage of the Act and steps are being taken regularly for complying with the provisions of the Act depositing the contributions to the appropriate authority. Sometimes in 1976 the Opposite Party No. 1 inspected the office of the petitioner and asked for production of the papers for the ten preceding years for determining whether the firm would come within the spell of the Act. The petitioners' case is that it was submitted before him that prior to December 1976 the number of employee of the firm being less than twenty, the petitioners were not liable to make the deposit under the Act. But a notice was served upon the petitioners in November 1976 from the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner claiming that the petitioners were liable for deposits. Summons were served upon the petitioners under Section 7A of the Act for determining the amount payable by the petitioners. Although the petitioners made categorical statement and representation that they were not liable to deposit any amount before December 1976 assessment was made against them for the alleged defaulted amount. The petitioners received further notices and finally the Provident Fund Authorities assessed that an amount of Rs. 1,27,294.74 was due from the petitioners for the period from March 1969 to November 1976. The Provident Fund Authorities filed proceeding under Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of the amount. But the certificate case was cancelled by the appropriate authority, that is, the Certificate Officer, on 25.2.1983. After even dismissal of that case the Provident Fund Authorities filed ninety-three complaint cases against the petitioners before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta as described in Annexure 'C' of the petition with prayer for conviction of the petitioners for non-payment of the amounts alleged to have been due from time to time. The petitioners submit that the act on the part of the Provident Fund Authorities was grossly mala fide. The petitioners were not responsible to the firm for the day to day act as there were Managers for looking into that executive function. As the certificate proceeding has been dismissed the claims of the Provident Fund Authorities were proved baseless. Institution and continuation of the said proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate were illegal and for that all of these should be quashed.
(3.) The Opposite Parties appeared through the learned Advocate and oppose the prayer for the aforesaid relief.;