- (1.)This judgment of mine will dispose of a bunch of 51 petitions (CRM Nos. M 14194, 15153, 15154, 15155, 15156, 15157, 15158, 15159, 15160, 15161, 15162, 16386, 16387, 16388, 16389, 16390, 16391, 16392, 16393, 16394, 16395, 16396, 16397, 16398, 16399, 17695, 17706 of 2011 and CRM Nos. M 24184, 24185, 24186, 24187, 24188, 24189, 24190, 24191, 24192, 24193, 24194, 24195, 35703, 35704, 35705, 35706, 35707, 35708, 35709, 35710, 35711, 35712, 35713, 35714 of 2013) filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts and the parties in all the above cases are almost similar. All the petitions have been filed by M.P. Singh, the Managing Director of the company known as M/s. Teck Tools Limited. The Respondents are Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh and Enforcement Inspector officer of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh. The complaint was moved by the Inspector, Provident Fund Inspector against the Petitioner and the Company for offences under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Schemes framed thereunder. The Petitioner was prosecuted for failure to deposit the Provident Fund amount. The period of default is different in each case. In application No. 14194 of 2011, the complaint relates to non-payment of the Employees Provident Contributions (Employees share and Employers Share) amounting to Rs. 233331/- and administrative charges of employees Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 16433/- for the period 11/2004 to 1/2005 by the stipulated dates and thus have committed offence, which is punishable offence under sections 6, 14(1A), 14A(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. In different cases, the period of default is different and it is not necessary to mention the same because it is not relevant for setting the issue in question.
(2.)For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case are being extracted from CRM No. M 14194 of 2011. The Provident Fund Inspector lodged a complaint (Annexure P20 to the Petition) on 16th December, 2008, alleging that M/s. Teck Tools Limited is an establishment to which the provisions of the Act and Schemes framed under the Act are applicable. M/s. Teck Tools Limited is a Company within the meaning of Explanation to Section 14A of the Act and the respondent No. 2 (Petitioner in this Court) is the Managing Director of the aforesaid establishment and was responsible to the establishment for the conduct of business of the said establishment for the said period and is liable to be punished. The accused have failed to deposit the amount of employers share of contribution for the period 11/2004 to 1/2005, and have thereby, committed an offence punishable under sections 6, 14(1A), 14A(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Almost similar allegations have been made in the other cases and the difference is only with regard to the period or the amount.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 17.2.2011, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender is bad in law. The Courts at Mohali have no jurisdiction, as the establishment falls within the territory of police station Kurali, District Ropar. He further argues that the amount due towards the petitioner has already been deposited by way of Bank guarantee. He further submits that the service was not effected upon the petitioner as the summons were sent at his factory address, which is lying closed for the last few years. He further argues that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner is incharge and responsible person for the conduct of the business of the company.