S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of the Civil Writ Petition referred to above as also Civil Writ Petition No. 1574 to 1978 Metal Products of India v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. The matter arising for consideration being the same, both these petitions were heard together. For the purpose of the controversy raised, it would suffice to set out the relevant facts of the case pertaining to Messrs Laxmirattan Engineering Works, Faridabad.
(2.) MESSRS Laxmirattan Engineering Works Limited is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of diesel engines in Faridabad. This company is covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It defaulted in making payments of provident fund contributions for the periods, November and December 1971, March to August, 1972 and September to November 1972. The employees' share of contribution deducted from their wages during these periods besides the employer's share were not paid within the stipulated period. Prosecutions were accordingly launched against the officers of the Petitioner - -company under Section 14 of the Act read with paragraph 76 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Further, a report was made to the Station House Officer, Faridabad, by the Provident Fund Inspector on December 27, 1972 and another on May 1.8, 1973, where it was alleged that the Petitioner -company had dishonestly misappropriated the money collected out of the wages of the employees under the Act. A request was made to the police to investigate the matter and to take necessary action for the prosecution of the Petitioner and their officers. No action appears to have been taken on these reports and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner then addressed a communication to the Inspector General of Police, Haryana, on April 18, 1975, requesting him to issue instructions to the police authorities concerned for registration of a case against the Petitioners. It was thereafter that a case came to be registered against the Petitioners. On July 4, 1975 the First Information Report (Annexure P.3) was recorded. The relief sought in this Writ Petition is the quashing of this report.
(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, it may be mentioned that an explanation was added to Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code by the employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund (Amendment) Act, 1973. This explanation came into effect from November 1, 1973 and read as under: A person being an employer who deducts the employees contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund Established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said fund, in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.;