The appellants filed an application praying that the proceedings against them should be dropped and they should be acquitted on the ground that Section 6 of the Act was number applicable to the establishment exempted under Section 17 of the Act and therefore numberproceedings under Section 14 can be initiated against them.
1, the companyplainant was examined who in his evidence admitted that the Government of India had exempted the said Company under Section 17 of the Act and the same had number been subsequently canceled and was in existence at all material times.
The appellants also received numberice dated 15th September, 1975 from the Inspector threatening to cancel the exemption granted under Section 17 of the Act.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 28th November, 1978 rejected the aforesaid application.
The respondent No.
356 357 of 1978.
Against that order in those three revision applications, the present appeals have been filed.
Being aggrieved they filed three criminal revision applications in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad who by a companymon order dismissed the same taking the view that Section 6 of the Act companyers and attracts all the establishments including the exempted establishment.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 9.3.1979 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Crl.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.647 48 of 1979.
However, some time in September, 1975 the said Companys Mill had to be closed down and liquidation proceedings were initiated.
The criminal companyplaints persuant to an order of the High Court were transferred to the Court of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.
Chidambram, A.T. Patra, S.R. Aggarwal Ms. Monika Mohil and Ms.Bina Gupta for the Appellants.
Revision Application Nos.
As a result of the said exemption the provisions of the employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 framed under Section 5 of the Act did number apply to the said Company which created a Trust and the management made companytributions of provident fund to the said trust and admittedly the exemption companytinued to be in operation at all material times.
In or about September October, 1975 the Inspector of Provident Fund filed criminal companyplaints in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Cambay against the appellant on the allegation that they being incharge of the management failed to pay the companytributions to the provident fund trust and thereby companymitted offences punishable under Sections 14 1A , 14 2 , 14 2A , 14A 1 , 14A 2 and Paragraph 76 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.
16 of 1971 and also by some amendments thereafter.
K. Dholakia, and Anip Sachthey for the Respondents.
The appellants, who are companymon in each of these three appeals, were companynected with the management of M S Shri Subhlaxmi Mills Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the said Company an establishment governed by the Act.
By a Notification dated 17th October, 1957 the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 17 of the Act granted exemption to the said Company subject to the companyditions specified in Schedule 2 annexed to the said Notification.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. The question of general importance that arises in these three appeals is whether criminal proceedings can be instituted under Section 14 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Act for short against an establishment exempted under Section 17 of the Act for the companytravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act?
