G. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THESE two revision petitions are directed against the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur dated 22-2-79 in Criminal Cases Nos. 49/75 and 281/75. As a common question of law is involved in both the revision petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) IN Criminal Revision No. 165/79 the facts of the case are as under:- The Leave Reserve Manager filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur alleging that the factory namely, M/s. Dharti Dhan (P) Ltd. , Udaipur is a factory as defined in sub-section (12) of Sec. 2 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The accused persons M. C. Golcha and B. K. Surana are the Managing Director and Manager respectively of this factory, and as such are the principal employers of the aforesaid factory as defined in clause 17 of Section 2 of the Act. Under Section 40 (1) of the Act read with Regulation-26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) every principal employer of a covered factory under the Act is required to submit contribution cards duly affixed with contribution stamps in Sets A, B, and C accompanied with the return of contribution cards in Form-6 within 42 days of the end of contribution period at the Regional Headquarters of Rajasthan Region of the Employees State Insurance Corporation. It is alleged that accused persons have not made the following statutory compliance within the statutory time limit: - (A) The contribution cards of Set-A affixed with contribution stamps for the contribution period ending on 27-7-84 which should have been submitted latest by 7-9-74 have not been submitted by the accused within the time limit. (B) The contribution cards of Set-B affixed with contribution stamps for the contribution period ending on 28-9-74 which should have been submitted latest by 11-11-74 have not been submitted by the accused within the time limit. Thus the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 85 (e and g) of the Act. The facts of the Revision Petition No. 249/79 are as under: - The Leave Reserve Manager filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur alleging that the factory namely, M/s. Dharti Dhan (P) Ltd. , Udaipur is a factory as defined in sub-section (12) of Section 2 of the Act. The accused persons M. C. Golcha and B. K. Surana are the Managing Director and Manager respectively of the factory, and as such are the principal employers of the aforesaid factory as defined in clause 17 of Section 2 of the Act. Under Section 40 (1) of the Act read with Regulation-26 of the Regulations, every principal employer of a covered factory under the Act is required to submit contribution cards duly affixed with contribution stamps in Sets A,b, and C accompanied with the return of contribution cards in Form-6 within 42 days of the end of contribution period at the Regional Headquarters of Rajasthan Region of the Employees State Insurance Corporation. It is alleged that account persons have not made the following statutory compliance within the statutory time limit: - (A) - The contribution cards of Set-C affixed with contribution stamps for the contribution period ending on 31-5-75 which should have been submitted latest by 12-7-75 have not been submitted by the accused persons within the time limit. It is thus a violation of Sec. 40 of the E. S. I. Regula-tion-26 of the E. S. I. Regulations, 1950. (B) - Contribution cards of Set-A affixed with contribution stamps for the contribution period ending on 26-7-75 which should have been submitted latest by 6-9-75 have not been submitted by the accused persons within the time limit. Thus they violated s. 40 of the Act and Regulation 26 of the Regulations. Hence both the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 85 (A) of the Act.
(3.) IN both the cases before the trial Magistrate, the accused B. K. Surana pleaded guilty and he was punished with a fine of Rs. 100/- for contravention of the provisions of the Act. No revision has been preferred by B. K. Surana against his conviction. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also found accused M. C. Golcha guilty for the contravention of Sec. 85 (e & g) of the Act and punished him with a fine of Rs. 100/- in both the cases. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, M. C. Golcha has filed these revision petitions in both the cases. Mr. M. B. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in both the revision petitions there is a technical point and on proper construction of Sec. 40 and Sec. 2 (17) of the Act, the petitioner is not covered within definition of principal employer. The learned C. J. M. has erred in holding that the petitioner is the employer and is liable for the contravention of Section 85 (e & g) of the Act read with Regulation 26 of the Regulations. ;