High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Suraj Narain Garg v. Regional Provident Fund Comissioner Varanasi And Others - WRIT - C No. 1199 of 2006  RD-AH 736 (10 January 2006)
Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings pending before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act').
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and have perused the materials available on record.
The dispute relates to Motiwala Industries Ltd. Proceedings were initiated by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi as the employers did not deposit either the employees' contribution or the employers' contribution before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi even though the contribution of the employees had been deducted from their salary. The said proceedings are still pending before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi and it appears that the petitioner is basically aggrieved by the communication dated 2.8.2005 sent by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi wherein it has been stated that a First Information Report should be lodged against the Directors under Sections 406 and 409 I.P.C. as the employers had misappropriated the employees' share of provident fund after deducting the same from the salary of the employees.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon undated communication (Annexure ''7' to the writ petition) wherein a request has been made on behalf of the Motiwala Industries Ltd. to allow some time to the employers to deposit the amount and contended that in such a situation, particularly when the petitioner is only a Sleeping Director, the Police authorities should be restrained from taking any action on the basis of the communication dated 2.8.2005.
We express our inability to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the resignation of the petitioner as Director had ever been accepted by the Board of Directors of the Motiwala Industries Ltd. The plea, that the employers will deposit the amount in the near future, cannot be made a ground to quash the proceedings pending before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi and nor can the proceedings on the basis of the communication dated 2.8.2005 be stalled on this ground.
We, therefore, see no good ground to entertain this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.