AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners are the accused in S.T.No.512 of 2016 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, based
on a complaint filed by the Enforcement Officer of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Kaloor, Kochi alleging violations of paragraph 76(b) and (d) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.
Paragraph 76(b) deals with the failure or refusal to submit any return, statement or other document required by the Scheme or submission of a false
return or statement, etc. Paragraph 76(d) is the contravention of, or non-compliance with any other requirement of the Scheme.
It is alleged that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner has demanded the compliance of certain Acts by the petitioners herein through order
dated 22.6.2015. According to the complainant, there were deliberate noncompliance of the said demands, from the part of the petitioners and
hence the complaint.
The learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that as per paragraph 78(3) of the Scheme the Authority to whom any directions are
issued under para.78(1), shall comply with such directions. As per para.78(1), the Central Government may issue such directions to State
Governments, the Central Board or any other Authority under the Act or Scheme for the proper implementation of the Scheme, etc.
The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent has produced a copy of order dated 22.6.2015 issued by the Central Provident Fund
Commissioner and pointed out that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner was clothed with the Authority to issue such an order under
para.78(1) of the Scheme. True that in the opening portion of the said order it has been noted that ""In view of the directions issued by the Central
Government under para.78(1) of the Employees'' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, .................."". According to Central Provident Fund
Commissioner, the said order was issued by invoking the power given to him under para.78 (1) of the Scheme, based on the so-called directions
of the Central Government. At the same time, the direction allegedly issued under para.78(1) of the Scheme has not been produced in the case
since it is not available. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner can invoke the power under para.78(3) of the Scheme only when he is so
authorised by the Central Government under para. 78(1) of the Scheme. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Central Provident
Fund Commissioner was not so authorised or directed by the Central Government under para.78(1) of the Scheme.
When there is absolutely nothing to show that the Central Government had actually directed the Central Provident Fund Commissioner to issue
the said order under para 78(3) of the Scheme, it cannot invite the offences under paragraph 76(b) and (d). Matters being so, all further
proceedings against the petitioners in S.T.No.512 of 2016 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate''s Court (Economic Offences),
Ernakulam, are liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.T.No.512 of 2016 before the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate''s Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, are quashed.