Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2370 (PNJ)

D. C. Mehandru v. Provident Fund Inspector

2018-05-21

P.B.BAJANTHRI

body2018
JUDGMENT M.S. Ramesh, J. (Oral) - This order shall dispose of the aforementioned 81 petitions. However, for convenience and clarity, facts are being taken from petition bearing No. CRM-M-10770-2013. 2. In the present petition, petitioners have challenged complaint dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure P-8) stated to have been registered on 23.02.2011 and order dated 2l.05.2012 against one Sh. Tarlochan Singh, the then Managing Director M/s Samsung Acrycot, Village Samalheir, P.O. Dappar, District Mohali by the respondent-Provident Fund Inspector (Enforcement Officer) before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Derabasi for the offences under Sections 6, 14 (1-A), 14A(1) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with Para 30, 38 and 76 (d) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1952. After examination of the complaint and other material, JMIC, Derabasi proceeded to issue summons to the petitioners on 21.05.2012 (Annexure P-11). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint is against one Sh. Tarlochan Singh, the then Managing Director M/s Samsung Acrycot whereas petitioners are Directors/Deputy General Manager of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation. Merely because there were transactions between the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation and M/s Samsung Acrycot unnecessarily petitioners have been involved in respect of deciding the complaint of the respondent against Sh. Tarlochan Singh for want of whereabouts of Tarlochan Singh and so also non-existence of M/s Samsung Acrycot. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are nowhere concerned in respect of complaint against Mr. Tarlochan Singh or against M/s Samsung Acrycot. Unnecessarily they have been summoned by the JMIC, Derabasi. Further it was contended that for taking any action or to act upon a complaint against any person under the EPF Act, under Section 14(1-A) of EPF Act is required to be complied by the competent authority to the extent of obtaining sanction from the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. As is evident from the record compliance have been made in respect of complaints under Section 14(AC) insofar as Tarlochan Singh is concerned. At the same time, there is no such compliance to the aforesaid Section in respect of the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, impugned summoning order dated 21.05.2012 (Annexure P-11) qua the petitioners is liable to be set aside. It was also submitted that during pendency of the present petition, one Sh. At the same time, there is no such compliance to the aforesaid Section in respect of the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, impugned summoning order dated 21.05.2012 (Annexure P-11) qua the petitioners is liable to be set aside. It was also submitted that during pendency of the present petition, one Sh. Tej Partap Singh Yadav AFPC, Legal, Regional Office EPFO, sCo 4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigdarh has filed an affidavit to the extent that there is no compliance to Section 14(AC) of EPF Act insofar as petitioners are concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that affidavit has been filed to the effect that there is mandatory non-compliance of the EPF Act to the extent of obtaining sanction to file complaint insofar as petitioners are concerned. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In view of the legal lacuna in not obtaining sanction before proceeding with the complaint against the petitioners with reference to 14 (AC) of the EPF Act, impugned summoning order dated 21.05.2012 do not sustain in the eye of law. Accordingly, summoning order dated 21.05.2012 (Annexure P-11) qua the petitioners is set aside. Reserving liberty to the petitioners as well as respondent to take appropriate recourse in view of the quashing of the summoning order dated 21.05.2012.