JUDGMENT : S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J.-These two connected writ petitions bring into the limelight a sad spectacle of a State Corporation flagrantly and glaringly violating the beneficent statutory provisions of the Employees' Provident' Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act; 1952 to the grave detriment of its own employees. 2. The facts which are hardly in dispute may be noticed from C.W.J.C. No. 1710 of 1984 Rajkiya Nalkup Karamchari Sangh v. The Bihar State Water Development Corporation Ltd. and others. Admittedly, the Bihar State Water Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Corporation') has been constituted as private limited company in pursuance of the Government resolution no. l216 dated the 31st of March, 1973 and further provision for its smooth function has been made by the ORDER :' of the State Government dated the 28th of February, 1974 (annexure 1). The respondent Corporation employed as many as 10,000 workers and has territorially divided its operations in two parts under two Chief Engineers, designated as Chief Engineer, South, and Chief Engineer North, and these zones are further divided into circles and divisions. The petitioner-Rajkiya Nalkup Karamchari Sangh-is a registered Union under the Trade Union Act and is working for the interest of the employees of the Irrigation Department and the Corporation with regard to its Muzaffarpur division which employs 739 officers and other staff. The respondent Corporation deducted the amounts from the emoluments of the aforesaid staff as the employees contribution to the contributory provident fund, general provident fund and group insurance even from November, 1973 onward till March, 1983. It has been categorically averred that these deductions were not deposited in accordance with law against the proper heads with the proper authorities nor any proper account thereof was maintained. The petitioner Union repeatedly raised this question before the respondent Corporation but was only given evasive assurance that the deductions from the salaries would be properly deposited. However, up till now the said amounts, though duly deducted from the salaries of the employees, have not been deposited in accordance with law by the respondent Corporation with the result that the said employees can't get any advance against the deposits and further due to the non deposit of the premium of insurance the families of several employees, (who have died), have been denied the benefit of the life insurance under the group insurance scheme. 3. 3. The petitioner averred that the issue of the non-deposit of the employee's contribution was repeatedly raised before the respondent Corporation' and it then issued the Circular dated the 11th May, 1977 (annexure-2) to the respective divisions directing them to act in accordance with law. However, despite the issuance of this directive, respondents 2 and 3 paid no heed thereto which necessitated the issuance of another letter to all Superintending and Executive Engineers of the Corporation (annexure 3). Similar directives were later issued on the 18th of January, 1979 and 17th of September, 1982 (vide annexures 4 and 5 to the writ application). In express terms, it is averred that seven employees of the respondent Corporation in these divisions have died and their contributions were duly deducted against the group insurance scheme but were not deposited against the insurance heads resulting in total deprivation of their families of the benefit of the life group insurance scheme. With particularity it is averred that the following contributions have been deducted from the employees' wages but have not been deposited in the respective accounts by respondent no. 3; "Contributory Provident Fund (1973 to March, 1983) - Rs. 13,00,000/- General Provident Fund - Rs. 30,000/- Group Insurance - Rs. 3, 32,000/- It is pointed out that the action of the respondents in failing to deposit is in clear violation of the provident Fund Act, the Bihar Contributory Provident Fund Rules, the Bihar General Provident Fund Rules and the Group Insurance Scheme. 4. In a supplementary affidavit placed on record by the petitioner it is reiterated that the contributions against group insurance, General Provident Fund and Contributory Provident Fund have been deducted from the salaries of about ten thousand employees of the corporation but have not been deposited in the proper head. Detailed annexure 7 has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit indicating that amounts to the tune of Rs. of 3,32,000/- under group insurance and Rs. 13,30,000 under the General Provident Fund and Contributory Provident Fund have been deducted from the salaries of the employees without being properly accounted for or being correctly deposited in the proper heads. A detailed list of 1,327 employees both on the regular and work charged establishments with their names, designations and the amounts deducted from each has been duly placed on the record (annexure-7). 5. A detailed list of 1,327 employees both on the regular and work charged establishments with their names, designations and the amounts deducted from each has been duly placed on the record (annexure-7). 5. It must be noticed regretfully that in a totally cryptic counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 the particularised averments made on behalf of the writ petitioners have not been specifically controverted and consequently they must be deemed to be admitted whilst equally some of them stand factually admitted. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is conceded that the monthly contributions of the General Provident fund, Contributory Provident Fund and 'L.I.C.' were made from each employees as per terms and conditions of the Government Circular and it is sought to be stated that only some of the amounts of the contributions has been previously deposited from time to time. It is stated that steps are now being taken (without any specification of time) to regularise the matter as soon as possible and the question of any fraud or mala fides as alleged by the writ petitioners does not arise because some of the amounts recovered were deposited and efforts are now being made to deposit the rest of the amount as soon as possible. Lastly, it is averred that the respondent Corporation is passing through a financial crisis and the amounts admittedly not deposited will be so done when the position will become normal. With characteristic nonchalance it is stated that it would take some time to normalise the situation. 6. Now it seems manifest from the aforesaid pleadings that the respondent Corporation has for over more than a decede been deducting• contributions from the wages of the employees for the Contributory Provident Fund, General Provident Fund and the General Insurance Scheme. The averments of the writ petitioners that an amount of approximately Rs. 16, 32000/- has been so deducted from the emoluments of the unfortunate employees have been virtually admitted. Equally it is the case in the counter-affidavit, and even more so, it was the stand of the learned counsel for the respondents at the Bar that undoubtedly a substantial portion of the said deducted amounts have not been deposited and the money has been diverted to other unauthorised uses Apparently, the mandatory employer's contribution has also not been made and deposited. Consequent to this default, it is the petitioners' rightful stand that irretrievable damage thereby has now been caused to the employees of the Corporation. Some of them have admittedly died and their families are thus denuded of the benefits of group insurance which was their due by the virtual defalcation of those amounts and the non-deposit of the respective premiums under the proper heads. 7. In the aforesaid established factual position, the matter has now to be viewed h the i light of the mandatory statutory provisions enacted for the benefit of the workman by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 5 empowers the framing of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme by a notification promulgated by the Central Government, and section 6 lays out that equal contributions be made by the employer and the employees provided for in such Scheme. In similar terms, the Act provided for the Employees' Family Pension Scheme and Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme by sections 6 A and 6 C. Reference may then be made to the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, which is admittedly statutory in character, and in particular to para 38, providing for the mode of payment of contributions. The relevant part thereof deserves quotation in extenso : "38. Mode of payment of contributions-(1) The employer shall, before paying the member his wages in respect of any period or part of period for which contributions are payable, deduct the employee's contribution from his wages which together with his own contribution as well as an administrative charge of such percentage of the day (basic wages, dearness allowance, retaining allowance, if any, and cash value of food concessions admissible thereon) for the time being payable to the employees other than an excluded employee and in respect of which provident fund contributions are payable, as the Central Government may fix, he shall within fifteen days of the close of every month pay the same to the Fund by separate bank drafts or cheques on account of contributions and administrative charges... " It is plain from the above that the law itself specifically provides not only for the respective contributions to be made, but also their deposit within fifteen days of the close of every month into the Fund. " It is plain from the above that the law itself specifically provides not only for the respective contributions to be made, but also their deposit within fifteen days of the close of every month into the Fund. The employer is equally under an obligation to forward to the Commissioner respective statements showing recoveries made from the wages of each employee and the amount contributed by the employer in respect of each such employees. This paragraph would leave no manner of doubt about the statutory obligation not only to deposit what is deducted from the employees' wages, but also to contribute the matching employer's share, and then to deposit the same in the Fund within a time prescribed each month. 8. Apart from the other provisions the Act provides a penal sanction for enforcing compliance of the statutory provision. Section 14 of the Act provides for such penalty, and in particular, sub-section (1-A) whereof lays down that the employer who contravenes, or makes default with regard to the payment of contribution as provided in paragraph 38 of the Scheme, shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than three months in cases of default of employees' contribution which has been deducted by the employer from the employees' wages. To bring be delinquent Company in the penal net, Section 14 A then provides that if the person committing an offence under this Act is a Company, then every person, who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. To lend procedural teeth to this provision, sections 14-A and 14-B then make the offence re1atmg to default in payment of contribution by the employer punishable under the Act as a cognizable offence. Succeeding section 14-AC, however, provides a safeguard in so far as no Court shall take cognizance of such an offence except with the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. Succeeding section 14-AC, however, provides a safeguard in so far as no Court shall take cognizance of such an offence except with the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. It is thus manifest that under the provisions of the Act and the statutory Scheme framed there under not only it is the mandate of the law that the contributions of the employees with matching contribution of the employer must be deposited in the Fund within the time prescribed, but any default thereof, is a cognizable penal offence severely punishable under section 14 of the Act. 9. However, what calls for more pointed notice is the fact that such like default would now come equally within the ambit of the more stringent provisions of section 406 or section 409 of the Indian Penal Code itself. It was patently to curb this serious evil of defalcation of contributions under the Act that the Legislature in its wisdom sought to insert Explanations 1 and 2 in section 405 of the Indian Penal Code which makes such default in deposit of such like contribution a serious criminal offence. The relevant provision reads as under:- "405. Criminal Breach of trust-Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any domain over property dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits 'criminal breach of trust '. Explanation 1-A person being an employer, who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee hr credit to a Provident Fund or family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount for the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. This plain language aforesaid would leave no manner of doubt that the deductions of an employee's contribution in the hands of an employer are entrustment of property within the meaning of section 405, and further if the employer makes a default in payment of these contributions, then he shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contributions in violation of the law aforesaid. In the light of the definition of section 405 and the added Explanation 1, there would remain little doubt that the deductions made by an employer under the Act and the non-deposit thereof would straightaway bring him within the clutches of the law of criminal breach of trust by a public servant under section 409, or in any case, under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The solicitude of the law with regard to the contributions made by poor workmen is manifest by bringing in the stringent aid of criminal sanction of the breach of trust in cases of non-deposit of such amounts. 10. Now, apart from the principle and the specific language of the statutory provision referred to above, it well appear that the recent precedent is equally a pointer towards stringent sanction necessary for enforcement of legislation in favour of workmen. In Bhagirath Kanoria and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (A. I. R. 1984 Supreme Court 1688), whilst holding that the offences under this very Act would be continuing offences, it was observed as follows by Chief Justice Chandrachud speaking for the Court : "Turning to the matters before us, the offence of which the appellants are charged is the failure to pay the employer's contribution before the due date. Considering the object and the purpose of this provision, which is to ensure the welfare of the workers, we find it impossible to hold that the offence is not of a continuing nature. The appellants were unquestionably liable to pay their contribution to the Provident Fund before the due date and it was within their power to pay it, as soon after the due date had expired as they willed. The last payment could not have absolved them of their original guilt but it would have snapped the recurrence. Each day that they failed to comply with the obligation to pay their contribution to the Fund they commit a fresh offence. The last payment could not have absolved them of their original guilt but it would have snapped the recurrence. Each day that they failed to comply with the obligation to pay their contribution to the Fund they commit a fresh offence. It is putting an incredible premium on lack of concern for the welfare of workers to hold that the employer who has not paid his contribution or the contribution of the employees to the Provident Fund can successfully evade the penal consequences of his act by pleading the law of limitation. Such offences must be regarded as continuing offences, to which the law of limitation cannot apply." 11. We must confess that we are not a little surprised and indeed distressed on the stand that has been taken on behalf of a Government Company in this case. It is virtually the admitted position that the respondent Corporation defaulted in its statutory obligation enjoined by law by not depositing the contributions deducted from the employees in the appropriate fund. Today it is well settled that the State must act as a model employer. However, the facts herein disclose a callousness by the respondent Corporation towards its employees which is obviously shocking. Far from contributing its own matching share forthrightly and depositing the deductions from the wages of the workmen in the Fund, it appears that even the contributions made by the workmen have been defalcated to some other ends. On the respondents own showing, all the deductions made have not been duly deposited as they were bound to do under the mandate of the law within fifteen days of the close of every month. Despite repeated and persistent demands made by the petitioner Unions on behalf of their workmen to remind the respondents of the statutory obligations, they have chosen to turn a deaf ear thereto for well-nigh ten years. Even today the stand taken on their behalf is that such deposits will be made as and when the Corporation is in a position to do so, and it appears to be totally oblivious of its mandatory legal duties, What is more significant is that without any specification of time, it is suggested that this would be done only when the financial position normalises and no indication is given of the foreseable future in which such normalisation is supposed to come into play. For aught we know the level of state of normalisation may never reach, but that in no way authorises the respondent Corporation to withhold deductions and continue with the non-performance of its legal duties. It 4eserves pointing that the mandates of the law are not to be made dependent on the whimsicality of the normalisation of the respondent Corporation's finance, where-after it may choose to deposit the already made deductions. We cannot but record our deep disapproval of what appears to be a flagrant violation of the law by those whose own duty it is to uphold the same. 12. Apart from any criminal liability it is equally manifest from the provisions referred to above that a statutory public duty lies on the respondent Corporation to deposit forthwith the deductions made from the employees' wages in the proper fund as mandated by the o\ct and the Scheme framed thereunder. Nor can there be any doubt that there is a legal right in the petitioner-Unions to enforce the same on behalf of their members workmen. Extreme situation here is highlighted by the uncontroverted position that the failure of the Corporation to deposit the contribution under the Group Insurance scheme has resulted in the total deprivation of the families of such workmen (who nave died) to claim insurance, which was their right under the law. Similarly, the other workmen are being continuously denied all the benefits that flow from the compliance of these beneficent provisions for the workmen owing to the default of the employer respondent Corporation. That the writ petitioner shave a legal right of enforcement of the statutory duty therefore, admits of no manner of doubt and they are clearly entitled to the relief of mandamus which they seek. 13. We, accordingly, allow these writ petitions with costs and direct the respondents to deposit the amounts deducted from the petitioners' wages against contributory provident fund, general provident fund and group insurance under their proper heads with the statutory contribution of the employer within one month from today. 14. A copy of the JUDGMENT : be forwarded to the respondent State of Bihar and the concerned Central Provident Fund Commissioner for information and necessary action.