ORDER These two writ petitions filed in the Appellate Side of this Court one of which being C.O. No. 4750(W) of 1988 has been treated as on day's list, along with two other writ petitions filed in the Original Side of this Court being Matter no. 1134 of 1987 and Matter no. 567 of 1989 have been heard together as they stem from inter-related facts. 2. All these four writ petitions have been filed at the instance of Kanknarrah Company Limited ('Company' for short) which carries on business in jute. Prior to the enforcement of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (now renamed as the Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952) hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', the system of providing provident fund facilities to its employees was already in vogue in the establishment of the Company, and for that purpose there was a Board of Trustees. After the Act came into force, the Company applied for and was granted exemption in respect of its establishment under s. 17 of the Act. Consequently, since then, it became imperative for the Company to transfer both the employer's and employees contributions of provident fund to the Board of Trustees in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. On April 8, 1982, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner', wrote a letter to the Factory Manager of the Company alleging that though the Company had deducted the employees share of provident fund contributions and refund of withdrawals from the wages/salary of the member/employees of its establishment for the period from November, 1981 to January 13, 1982 amounting to Rs. 11,19,653.87 it had not transferred the same to the Board of Trustees along with the employer's share of contributions within the prescribed time. The Manager was accordingly requested by the Commissioner to intimate the reasons as to why prosecution for criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of employee's provident fund moneys should not be launched. Another letter was sent by the Commissioner on the self-same day pointing out to the Company that it had not transferred to the Board of Trustees its provident fund contributions amounting to Rs. 15,92,658.68 for the self-same period and warned that if the payment was not made within ten days from the receipt of the letter, prosecution would be launched under the provisions of the Act. 15,92,658.68 for the self-same period and warned that if the payment was not made within ten days from the receipt of the letter, prosecution would be launched under the provisions of the Act. Another letter was sent to the Company on May 21, 1982 by the Commissioner, pointing out that a sum of Rs. 4,93,985.61 was invested by it in contravention of the relevant statutory provisions. On receipt of the letters the representative of the Company met the Provident Fund Commissioner and thereafter the Secretary of the Company wrote a letter on June 4, 1982 wherein it admitted that a sum of Rs. 28.53 lakhs being employees' contributions and repayment of loan by them for the period from July, 1981 to April 21, 1982, and a sum of Rs. 16.83 lakhs being employers' share for the said period, totalling a sum of Rs. 45.36 lahks, was lying outstanding and undertook to clear up the above dues by the end of March, 1983, and also to transfer the present contributions regularly to the Board of Trustees. The Secretary, accordingly, requested the Commissioner not to take any legal action against it and its directors. In reply thereto, the Commissioner by his letter June 9, 1982, directed the Company to transfer the current provident fund dues regularly to the Board of Trustees together with a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs per month towards the arrears together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. In his letter the Commissioner made it clear that if it was found that compliance had net been made as per his order, in any month legal action would be taken. Thereafter, the Company, one of its directors and its Secretary moved a writ petition in this Court on October 14, 1982 challenging the various letters issued, orders passed, and threats meted out by the Commissioner to take penal action against them for non-payment of provident fund dues and obtained a Rule and an interim order to the effect that the provident fund authorities would not initiate any penal measure by way of recovery proceeding or any criminal case for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act in the matter of payment of provident fund dues of its employees. The Court directed the Company to pay the current dues and also a sum of Rs. The Court directed the Company to pay the current dues and also a sum of Rs. 1 lakh every month towards liquidation of its dues on account of arrear provident fund money. The above interim order was twice modified on September 23, 1983 and April 12, 1984 and the Company was permitted to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 per month towards liquidation of arrear dues. The above Rule, which was registered as C.R. No. 14326 (W) of 1982, was finally disposed of on March 4, 1986 with a direction upon the Company to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs by July 30, 1986 and to pay Rs. 3 lakhs per month till the entire dues were liquidated. It was made clear that in the event of failure to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs. 15 lakhs within the time stipulated or any two instalments in terms of the order, the provident fund authorities would be at liberty to initiate or take steps in accordance with law forthwith. As in the meantime, prosecutions had been launched against the Company and its officers for failure to pay in terms of the interim orders of the Court passed in the above Rule, the learned Judge granted an unconditional stay of the pending prosecutions till June 30, 1986. 4. In or about June, 1986, the Union Labour Minister decided to hold a meeting to review the position of arrears of provident fund and State insurance dues in respect of jute mills and accordingly a notice was issued calling upon the owners of the jute mills to attend the meeting which was to be held on July 7, 1986, Along with the notice a list of jute mills which were in arrears of Rs. 25 lakhs or more as on 31.12.85 was enclosed. From this list, it appears that as on 31.12.85, the provident fund arrears of the Company was Rs. 1 crore and 20 lakhs. The meeting, as scheduled was held on July 7, 1986 and the following conclusions were reached therein. “(1) The jute mills will be regular in payment of current dues from this month i.e. July, 1986, onwards. (2) The jute mills defaulting in EPF/ESIC dues would agree to deduction of 8 per cent being made from the amount payable to them (exclusive of Excise and/or Custom duties) on all purchase orders placed on Union Government account. “(1) The jute mills will be regular in payment of current dues from this month i.e. July, 1986, onwards. (2) The jute mills defaulting in EPF/ESIC dues would agree to deduction of 8 per cent being made from the amount payable to them (exclusive of Excise and/or Custom duties) on all purchase orders placed on Union Government account. On their giving individual written consent to this effect, the amounts so realised will be taken in settlement of their dues for the period prior to July, 1986, i.e. upto end-June, 1986. The total dues from them would be computed as per the provisions of the EPF/ESI Acts. (3) The jute mills will avoid litigation on matters relating to payment of EPF/ESI dues. Where they have obtained courts orders for lower instalment payment of EPF/ESI dues, they will immediately approach the courts to hold in abeyance their orders. The EPF/ESI authorities will review the prosecution/recovery action against the jute mills over the next 3 months. (4) The jute mills which are presently closed would pay the current dues and the instalments they are already paying under Court orders. (5) If a closed mill reopens and starts operating within three months i.e., by the 30th September, 1986, it will also pay the current and past dues as at (1) and (2) above. In the case of mills which fail to reopen within three months’ time, the EPF/ESI authorities will take necessary action for realisation of the outstanding dues in accordance with the provisions of the EPF/ESI Act. (6) The position of realisation of the outstanding dues will be reviewed after six months." 5. In terms of paragraph (2) above, the Company gave its written consent but, as it appears, the Company did not comply with its obligation under the other paragraphs. Thereafter, on August 4, 1986, the Commissioner served notices upon the Company pointing out that though for the period from October, 1985 to June, 1986, the Company had deducted as employees share of provident fund contributions and refund of withdrawals from the wages salary of the employees amounting to Rs. 61 lakhs and odd it had not transferred the same to the Board of trustees and asked it to show cause why prosecution should not be launched against it for offences under ss. 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code. 61 lakhs and odd it had not transferred the same to the Board of trustees and asked it to show cause why prosecution should not be launched against it for offences under ss. 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code. Similar notices were served for non-deposit of employer's contributions for the self-same period and the Company was directed to set right the irregularity on pain of legal action. In reply thereto, the Company brought to the notice of the Commissioner the decision arrived at on July 7, 1986 and asked him not to pursue the matter any further. On receipt of the reply, the Commissioner wrote a letter on 22.8.86 wherein he justified his notices on the grounds that the details of the agreement were not known to him but as the Company failed to pay the arrear provident fund dues in terms of the order of the High Court dated March 4, 1986, the interim order stood vacated automatically. 6. Immediately thereafter, on September 19, 1986 to be precise, a writ petition (C.O. 12483(W) of 1986), being first of these four petitions, was filed jointly by the Company, some of its directors, some who claimed to have ceased to be directors, and its Chief Executives praying for appropriate writs for quashing the notices dated August 4, 1986 issued by the Commissioner, and for implementing the decision taken in the meeting held on July 7, 1986. Pending disposal of that petition, an order was made directing the Company to make payment of provident fund arrears in terms of the settlement recorded in the meeting held on July 7, 1986, staying the proceedings of the pending criminal and certificate cases, and restraining the provident fund authorities from initiating any proceeding for recovery of arrears of provident fund and Employees State insurance dues for the period upto June 30, 1986. 7. Thereafter on January 22, 1987, the Commissioner sent a written complaint to the Inspector General of Police (SPI), West Bengal against some officers and director of the Company alleging that they had not deposited with the Board of trustees the sum of Rs. 5.13 and 11.14 lakhs, which they had deducted from the wages of their employees towards their provident fund contributions and recovered from their wages against their loans respectively, for the months of July and August, 1986. 5.13 and 11.14 lakhs, which they had deducted from the wages of their employees towards their provident fund contributions and recovered from their wages against their loans respectively, for the months of July and August, 1986. On the basis thereof, Jagaddal P.S. Case No. 3 dated 2.2.87 was registered under ss. 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code and one of the directors of the Company was arrested. Immediately thereafter, the Company and its accountant moved this Court in its Original Side, by filing a writ petition, (Matter No. 1134 of 1987). On that petition, the following ex parte interim order was passed on February 19, 1987 :- "Considering the urgency of the case the provision of Rule 27 of the High Court Rules is dispensed with. It appears that out of total sum of Rs. 16.27 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 8.42 lakhs has been paid and the balance sum of Rs. 7,85,166.56 is due on account of provident fund dues for which a criminal case namely Jagatdal P.S. Case No. 3 dated February 2, 1987 has been initiated. Mr. Swapan Ash is appointed as Special Officer. Upon depositing a cheque for Rs. 2,80,753.00 to the Special Officer by the petitioners there will be an order in terms of prayers (g) and (i) of the petition. It is recorded that the cheque for Rs. 2,80,753.00 has been handed over to Mr. Swapan Ash, the Special Officer. The said B.N. Verma shall he released upon production of the signed copy of this order. The Special Officer shall deposit the cheque to the State Bank of India A/C Kanknarrah Company Limited Employees Provident Fund and intimate such deposit to the respondents. The petitioners shall also pay a further sum of Rs. 2,63,495.00 within 12th March, 1987 and the balance sum of Rs. 2,40,920.56 shall be deposited within 2nd April, 1987. Upon payment of the first instalment as stated hereinabove for Rs. 2,80,753.00 there will be a stay of all further proceedings in respect of the said Jagatdal P.S. Case No. 3 dated February 2, 1987. The application is made returnable on 23rd February, 1987. The petitioners are directed to serve a copy of the petition on all the respondents and file Affidavit of Service to that effect. The petitioners shall pay remuneration of the Special Officer assessed at 30 Gms. The application is made returnable on 23rd February, 1987. The petitioners are directed to serve a copy of the petition on all the respondents and file Affidavit of Service to that effect. The petitioners shall pay remuneration of the Special Officer assessed at 30 Gms. Liberty is granted to the respondents to apply for variation and/or modification of the order passed upon notice to the petitioner. All parties including the said Jagaddal P.S. to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the dictated order." 8. Alleging similar misappropriation of the deductions and recoveries made from the employees wages for the subsequent period from September, 1986 to July, 1987 amounting to Rs. 23.78 lakhs, another case was registered by Jagaddal Police Station, being Jagaddal P.S. Case No. 6 dated February 2, 1988, against the directors and officers of the Company on the complaint of the Commissioner. Another writ petition (C.O. 4750(W)/85) was then filed by the Company and its directors in the Appellate Side of this Court. On that petition, an ex parte interim order was passed restraining the police from proceeding with the case in question on the petitioners depositing Rs. 1 lakh. The interim order was subsequently extended on a further deposit of Rs. 1 lakh. 9. Thereafter by his letter dated August 23, 1988 the Commissioner informed the Company that a decision was taken by the Mini tries of Labour and Textile to withdraw the scheme dated 7.7.86 and consequently the same stood withdrawn. Assailing the above letter the Company and one of its directors moved the last of these four writ petitions (Matter no. 567/89) in the Original Side of this Court and obtained an interim order in terms of prayer 'e' of the said petition, which reads as follows :- “e) An injunction do issue restraining the Respondents their agents and/or Subordinates from taking any steps against the petitioner company and its directors and officers and from initiating any certificates for criminal proceedings or levying damages or penalties in respect of the arrears under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 covered by the Settlement dated 7th July 1986 being annexure 'B' hereto and further restraining the respondents and each one of them from giving effect or any further effect to the impugned notice and/or letter dated 23.8.88 and stay of all criminal and certificate proceedings respondent authorities;” 10. From the above narrative it is evidently clear that as and when the fund authorities called upon the Company to fullfill their statutory obligations under the Acton pain of prosecution or translated their threat into act on by filing complaints in Court or registering cases with the police, the Company, its directors and its officers moved writ petitions before this Court either to foreclose the impending prosecutions or to forestall the prosecutions already launched in Court or with the police and obtained interim orders. Regrettably, however, in none of the four petitions it was disclosed that similar petition/ petitions was/were earlier moved and interim orders obtained. Needless to say, the total amount of provident fund arrears payable by the Company till the date of filing of the respective writ petitions was also not disclosed nor was it disclosed that the instalments payable in terms of the earlier interim orders to liquidate the provident fund arrears were not regularly paid. The suppression of these material facts is by itself a sufficient ground to reject these four petitions but then there are other grounds also, as the discussion to follow will show, for which these writ petitions must fail. 11. In all these four writ petitions, the common case of the respective petitioners, including the Company, is that due to recession in the jute industry as a whole and the financial distress occasioned thereby the Company could not fulfill its commitments under the Act. Even if it is assumed that the above contention is a genuine one for which the writ petitioners may seek and expect the Court's sympathy, still then it can only account for and explain away the Company's failure to pay its own (emphasis supplied) share of provident fund contribution but not its failure to deposit with the Board of trustees the employees share of contribution and money repaid by them towards liquidation of the loan taken from their provident fund accounts, which have already been deducted from their wages. Such failure to deposit the deductions made from the employees wages in accordance with law not only constitutes offence under the Act but also of criminal breach of trust within the meaning of s. 405 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Such failure to deposit the deductions made from the employees wages in accordance with law not only constitutes offence under the Act but also of criminal breach of trust within the meaning of s. 405 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. The scheme of a provident fund, with both employees and employer's contribution, was conceptualized to make some provision for the future of an employee after his retirement or to ameliorate the sufferings of his dependents in case of his early death. The other advantage thought of was one of cultivating among the workers a spirit of saving something regularly. The legislative imprimatur to the concept was given by the Act and the scheme made thereunder and by recognising more favorable schemes operating in various establishments under s. 17 of the Act. As already noticed the scheme operating in the Company's establishment was recognised under s. 17. 13. It is a matter of great concern, consternation and condemnation that enforcement of such a welfare legislation is being thwarted by the Company and the persons in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business by habitually withholding deposit of the provident fund contributions of the employees and misappropriating their hard earned money. Obviously with a view to dealing with such persons that the legislature in its wisdom included them within the ambit of s. 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is intended to deal with habitual criminals and desperate outlaws who are so hardened and incorrigible that the ordinary provisions of the penal law and the normal fear of well merited punishment thereunder are not sufficient deterrents or adequate safeguards, so that they may be placed under such substantial security as would prevent them from resorting to evil practices. In view of the above discussion it must be held that the sympathy earlier shown by this Court to the Company and the officers responsible to it was wholly misplaced and any further sympathy, if shown to them would amount to putting premium on habitual wrong-doing and in the process justice would be the first casualty. It will be pertinent to paint out here that the provident fund dues of the Company which was admittedly Rs. 45.36 lakhs as an 21.4.82 has now swelled to the staggering figure of more than Rs. 4 crores. 14. It will be pertinent to paint out here that the provident fund dues of the Company which was admittedly Rs. 45.36 lakhs as an 21.4.82 has now swelled to the staggering figure of more than Rs. 4 crores. 14. Now that the discussion in respect of the common merits of these four writ petitions is complete, let me discuss their individual merits, if any. Apart from the common plea of financial discomfort raised in all of them, in C.O. No. 12483(W) of 1986 it has been urged that in view of the settlement arrived at in the meeting held an July 7, 1986, the provident fund authorities cannot take any step to recover the arrears due till June 30, 1986 except in the manner prescribed thereunder. Consequently, it has been averred therein all the proceeding initiated for realisation of dues payable till that day, and prosecutions lunched for failure to pay the said dues are liable to be withdrawn or stayed. Similar submission against launching of prosecution and initiation of proceeding for the selfsame period has been made. 15. The settlement, which has been earlier quoted, does not at all support the above submissions of the writ petitioner. On the contrary, paragraph (3) thereof patently contradicts their submission. It may also be recalled that the Company had failed to pay the does in terms of the orders of the Court dated 4.3.86 passed in the earlier petition C.O. No. 14326 (W) of (82), a fact totally suppressed in this writ petition. 16. In the next two writ petitions, being Matter No. 1134 of 1987 and C.O. No. 4750(W) of 1988 filed for quashing the investigation of Jagaddal P.S. Case No. 3 dated 2.2.87, and Jagaddal P.S. Case No. 6 dated 3.2.88, no ground, far less substantial, has been pleaded to successfully assail the prosecution, launched against the Directors and Officers of the Company for having committed offence under ss. 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code. On the contrary, the averments made in each of the two petitions which are verbatime, give a false impression that all earlier arrears have been liquidated by the Company and the only arrears payable by it are for the periods, for which the prosecutions have been launched namely, July and August, 1986 and September, 1986 to July, 1987. 17. On the contrary, the averments made in each of the two petitions which are verbatime, give a false impression that all earlier arrears have been liquidated by the Company and the only arrears payable by it are for the periods, for which the prosecutions have been launched namely, July and August, 1986 and September, 1986 to July, 1987. 17. In the last writ petition, it has been averred that as the settlement dated July 7, 1986 was a valid one and the same was being implemented through deductions @ 8% on Government account from the money receivable by the Company, the revocation of the settlement, and that too without prior hearing, as communicated through the letter dated August 23, 1988, is illegal and arbitrary. Seemingly the above argument is indefensible, but a close scrutiny of the entire facts and circumstances discloses that the same is fallacious and has been cunningly devised to found a case for interference by the Court. 18. On the own showing of the writ petitioners a sum of Rs. 16,58,134/- has been adjusted in terms of paragraph (2) of the settlement against the total dues of Rs. 2,03,11,281.99 leaving a balance of Rs. 1,86,53,147.99 which remain still unpaid. This apart, though the settlement clearly stipulated that the jute mills would be regular in payment of dues from the month of July, 1986 onwards, the Company, admittedly, did not pay its dues from the month of July, 1986 to July, 1987 regularly for which the two police cases earlier referred to were registered. It will be pertinent to point out here that even thereafter the Company did not pay in terms of the settlement as will be evident from the fact that as on 29.2.1988, the total outstanding provident fund dues of the Company was Rs. 392.14 lakhs. It does not therefore lie in the mouth of the writ petitioners to say that as it has been paying in terms of the settlement the revocation is arbitrary and illegal. Rather the Government was fully justified in revoking the settlement, as it did not yield the desired result. 19. On the conclusions as above, I reject all the four writ petitions and vacate the interim orders which are still operative. Rather the Government was fully justified in revoking the settlement, as it did not yield the desired result. 19. On the conclusions as above, I reject all the four writ petitions and vacate the interim orders which are still operative. The learned Courts below are directed to dispose of the complaint cases filed against the Company and its directors and other officers in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. The Investigating Officers are also directed to complete the investigation of the two impugned police cases expeditiously. Needless to say, if in case of such investigation or trial, as the case may be, it is found that one or more of the arraigned persons were not in charge of, and were not responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business during the offending periods in question order of discharge or acquittal, as the case may be should be recorded in their favour. There will be no order as to costs. 20. Let it be recorded that the respondents do not admit any of the allegations made in Matter No. 567 of 1989, in which no affidavit-in-opposition have been filed on their behalf. All applications rejected and interim order vacated; complaint case directed to be disposed expeditiously.