M.R. Sharma, S.S.Sidhu, JJ. - (1.) FOUR complaints were filed against the Respondents under Section 14 (i) (a) of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, read with paragraph 76 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Act. The allegations levelled were that the Respondents failed to deposit with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner the provident fund amounts which consisted of the conssibutions(sic) made by the employees as also the contributions which were to be made by the employer. Before the learned trial Magistrate, two objections were taken. It was submitted that least in two cases, which art now the subject matter of Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 2454 and 2455 of 1979(sic), Shri Harminder Singh Respondent was not the Managing Director of M/s Gondara Transport Co (Pvt ) Limited, village Gondara, District Faridkot, at the material time, 2nd that complaint was barred by time. In one case out of which criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2456 of 1979 arises, the contributions were to be made from December, 1972, to February, 1973, whereas the above -named Respondent assumed charge as Managing Director of that company on 1st March, 1973. In the case out of which Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2453 of 1979 has arisen, this Respondent was the Managing Director of the Company at the material time but the objection raised was that the complaint relating to this period was also barred by time. The learned trial Magistrate upheld these objections and dismissed the complaints, vide his order dated December 21, 1978 Provident Fund Inspector, Ludhiana, has filed these four applications under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Proceed are, 1773, for special leave to appeal.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners has strenuously argued that the Act in question is a social legislation and even if the Department puts forth no reason for seeking condonation of delay or for explaining the delay, the court should have suo motu condoned the delay. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1648 of 1973(sic) M/s Ganesh Cold Storage, etc. v. The State of Bihar and others, Cr. M. No. 1648 of 1977), decided on 10th September, 1927. The learned Judge in that case relied upon the last portion of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thought it fit, in the circumstances of that case, that the delay in filing the complaint should have been condoned in the interest of justice. We do appreciate that it is a social legislation and as far as possible, its provisions should be interpreted in a manner which best subserves the purpose of the legislation, but the law also casts a duty on those who are to administer this Act to do so quite vigilantly. Whet we questioned Mr. Dewan to tell us as to whether there was any reason on which delay should be condoned, he frankly conceded that he was unable to advance any ground like the inability of the persons concerned due to certain circumstances to initiate action against the Respondents. He merely submitted that the last words appearing in Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that "it is necessary to so do in the interest of justice" was the provision of law on which be relied and the learned Magistrate should have, in exercise of that power, condoned the delay.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are unable to accept the position that in cases under this Act, delay should be mechanically condoned by the trial Magistrate in all the cases. He is to see the attending circumstances, including the conduct of the persons whose duty is to administer the Act, the situation in which the Respondent was placed and then to decide whether delay should be condoned or not. If it were to be held that delay should be mechanically condoned in each and every case, that would further add to the lethargy of the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, To be charged of a criminal offence is qu to a serious matter and even if an employer commits a default under the provisions of this Act, he has a right to urge that the process of law should not be set in motion against him after a long delay when the matter had become stale.;