PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR VS M/S BAPTIST SENIOR SECONDARY (2022) AIR 2022 P&H 1551
| Citation | AIR 2021 P&H 1551 |
| Date of Judgment | 14th March, 2022 |
| Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal No.219 of 2021 |
| Appellant | Provident Fund Inspector |
| Respondent | M/S Baptist Senior Secondary |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bharadwaj |
| Referred | Section-7 sub-section (1)(f) of Factories Act, 1948 200, 201, 204, 244(1), 244(2), 245(1), 245(2), 246(1) of CrPC |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case filed by Provident Fund Inspector against the respondents under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 read with Sections 6, 14(1-A) and 14A of Employees’s Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. The accused M/s Baptist Senior School represented by Rev Solomon David, Rev Solomon David, Manger, BUNI Manager, Dayal Masih, President, BUNI, Daniel Budh Masih, Secy- Treasurer, Joy S. Singh, BCTA. S. K. Raj, Member BUNI, oversee a responsible for the conduct of the business of the said establishment. They are required to comply with all the provisions of the said Act, the Scheme (the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme) in respect of the said establishment. Under paragraph 4 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, the accused are required to pay the Employer’s contribution to the Pension Fund in respect of employees of the said establishment for every month within 15 days of the close of that month. That in spite of several requests, the accused failed to pay in the manner mentioned in the complaint, further submitting that accused M/s. Baptist Senior Secondary School, Rev Solomon David, Manager, BUNI, Dayal Masih, President, BUNI, Deniel Budh Masih, Secy-Treasurer, Joy S. Singh, BCTA, S. K. Raj, Member BUNI, was during the relevant period In charge of the said establishment responsible for the conduct of the business of the said establishment. As the said establishment/Director/Owner due to their neglect have failed to comply with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act read with para 4 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 hence have committed offence punishable under section 14(1-A) and 14-A of the Act.”
After filing of the aforesaid complaint, the parties were summoned and the matter was fixed for framing of charge. The counsel representing the respondents-accused submitted that Baptist Union of Northern India is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and that the accused persons-respondents were not legally bound to make contribution in the pension fund of the employees of M/s Baptist Senior Secondary School, Circular Road, Bhiwani, as contribution in the provident fund is to be made by Principal of this school. It was further pointed out that there was no evidence to show that the accused persons were office bearers of M/s Baptist Senior Secondary School, Circular Road, Bhiwani, at the relevant time and a specific argument was raised that the accused/respondents had no control over the affairs of the school and that the same were managed by the principal who had not been arrayed as an accused. After filing of the aforesaid complaint, the parties were summoned and the matter was fixed for framing of charge. The counsel representing the respondents-accused submitted that Baptist Union of Northern India is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and that the accused persons-respondents were not legally bound to make contribution in the pension fund of the employees of M/s Baptist Senior Secondary School, Circular Road, Bhiwani, as contribution in the provident fund is to be made by Principal of this school. It was further pointed out that there was no evidence to show that the accused persons were office bearers of M/s Baptist Senior Secondary School, Circular Road, Bhiwani, at the relevant time and a specific argument was raised that the accused/respondents had no control over the affairs of the school and that the same were managed by the Principal who had not been arrayed as an accused.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioners: –
The petitioners in the case of Provident Fund Inspector vs M/S Baptist Senior Secondary (2022) presented several arguments in support of their case. The primary arguments presented by the petitioners were as follows:
Argument 1: Non-payment of PF Dues by the Company
The first argument presented by the petitioners was that the company had failed to pay the PF dues of its employees. The petitioners argued that the company had not made any payments towards the PF dues and that the employees were yet to receive the money. The petitioners claimed that the company had violated the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and that they should be held responsible for their actions.
Argument 2: Non-compliance with the Provisions of the Act
The second argument presented by the petitioners was that the company had failed to comply with the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioners argued that the company had not followed the provisions of the Act while making the payments and that this had resulted in the non-payment of the PF dues. The petitioners claimed that the company’s actions had violated the provisions of the Act and they should be held accountable for their actions.
Argument 3: Violation of the Employees’ Rights
The third argument presented by the petitioners was that the company had violated the rights of the employees by not making the payments towards the PF dues. The petitioners argued that the company had not made the payments as per the provisions of the Act and that this had resulted in the non-payment of the dues. The petitioners claimed that the company had violated the rights of the employees and they should be held responsible for their actions.
Argument 4: Non-compliance with the Rules and Regulations
The fourth argument presented by the petitioners was that the company had failed to comply with the rules and regulations set by the government. The petitioners argued that the company had not followed the rules and regulations set by the government while making the payments and that this had resulted in the non-payment of the PF dues. The petitioners claimed that the company had violated the rules and regulations set by the government and they should be held accountable for their actions.
Argument 5: Failure to Provide Adequate Documentation
The fifth argument presented by the petitioners was that the company had failed to provide adequate documentation for the payments made towards the PF dues. The petitioners argued that the company had not provided the necessary documentation for the payments and that this had resulted in the non-payment of the dues. The petitioners claimed that the company had violated the provisions of the Act and they should be held responsible for their actions.
Implications of the Arguments by Petitioner
The arguments presented by the petitioners in the case of Provident Fund Inspector vs M/S Baptist Senior Secondary (2022) have far-reaching implications in the Indian legal system. The arguments presented by the petitioners have highlighted the importance of compliance with the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the need for companies to adhere to the rules and regulations set by the government. The arguments have also highlighted the importance of providing adequate documentation for payments made towards the PF dues.
In addition, the arguments presented by the petitioners have also highlighted the importance of protecting the rights of employees. The petitioners argued that the company had violated the rights of the employees by not making the payments towards the PF dues. This serves as an important reminder that companies must adhere to the law and respect the rights of their employees.
Respondents: –
The respondent, M/S Baptist Senior Secondary, is arguing that the petitioner is wrong in its accusations. The respondent is asserting that it is in compliance with all the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is also arguing that it has paid all the required contributions to the provident fund scheme and that it has correctly furnished all the details of its employees to the Provident Fund Office.
The case of Provident Fund Inspector vs M/S Baptist Senior Secondary (2022) is a complex legal battle that has been going on since 2022. The petitioner is claiming that the respondent has violated various provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The respondent is arguing that the petitioner is wrong in its accusations and that it is being unfairly targeted. The outcome of the case will have far-reaching implications for employers and employees alike. It is thus important that the court carefully consider the arguments of both the petitioner and the respondent before rendering its judgement.
JUDGEMENT
The order framing the charges does substantially affect the person’s liberty and it cannot be said that the Court automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecuting authorities by relying on the documents referred to in Section 173 consider it proper to institute the case. The responsibility of framing the charges is that of the Court and has to judicially considered the question of doing so. Without fully advertising the material on the record it must not blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution. A perusal of the same shows that the Court is not expected to act as a post office and the Judge has to sift and weigh the evidence as well as the material placed before it. Hence, even though Court may not get into the probative value of the evidence at the stage of framing of charge/discharge, if there are two views that are possible and only one of them gives rise to a suspicion, the Judge would be empowered to discharge an accused. Law would permit the Court to examine the evidence, without going into the probative value thereof, and to determine whether the same, if un-rebutted, is prima facie sufficient to lead to a conviction. It cannot be perceived that the charge must always be framed merely because an allegation has been levelled in the complaint by the complainant. The requirement of prima facie evidence cannot be satisfied by a mere oral testimony. The prima facie requirement would require existence of such legally admissible evidence as would give rise to a presumption against the accused over and above than being a mere suspect.
Such a presumption cannot be expressed from unsubstantiated and uncorroborated bald assertions. it cannot be adhered that the agony had no means to determine who is responsible and liable to be prosecuted and that such liability on the part of the prosecuting agency must give it liability to prosecute all and sundry. A statement of fact pertaining to a juristic entity and its office bearers is not a fact that can be presumed. The same has to be prima facie established by some material. The Court would not, at the stage of framing of charge, go into the probative valve of the said evidence, however, absence of any evidence cannot be discarded or be ignored. A complainant cannot be extended a leverage to an extent that all persons named by him should be prosecuted despite absence of any material to connect therewith the juristic entity liable to be prosecuted. Such a proposition, if accepted, would vest unbridled authority in a complainant to array any number of accused and to claim their prosecution irrespective of any material to link and establish their association with the establishment sought to be prosecuted. It is well settled that criminal prosecution has ramifications on the liberties of an individual and that such liberties cannot be subdued at the whims of a complainant. Once a complainant chooses to prosecute a person, a prima facie burden lies upon him to establish that the person chosen by the complainant to be prosecuted for the acts of omission of a juristic entity, are the persons who are responsible for and are in ultimate control of the management and of the affairs of the juristic entity sought to be prosecuted. The petitioner-complainant has however, failed to adduce evidence on record to establish as to how the respondents-accused are in ultimate control of the affairs of M/s Baptist Senior Secondary School. Unless the Baptist Union of Northern India is held to be an ’employer’ within the meaning of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, the office bearers of the Baptist Union of Northern India cannot be prosecuted. The ’employer’, within the meaning of Haryana School Education Board, 2003, is the principal of the school who has also not been arrayed as an accused. An owner of the premises would not become the employer of the employees working therein. It has to be established by the complainant that the owner of the premises also controls the affairs of the establishment against whom the default has been alleged. The said burden has to be primarily discharged by the complainant who is prosecuting the respondents and only if there is sufficient material that can lead to an inference that the person sought to be prosecuted is in-charge of affairs of the establishment, would the burden shift upon the person so sought to be prosecuted. It is evident that the trial Court noticed the aforesaid deficiencies in the case of the petitioner and hence, exercised its jurisdiction under Section 245 CrPC, to discharge the respondents. I find that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and it also does not suffer from any non-appreciation of the material available on record. Petition was accordingly dismissed.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Raghav Agarwal of Christ University Pune Lavasa,4th Semester, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
