Appeal No 2198 of 1986
From the Judgment and order dated 17121985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No 1155 of 1977
SM Ashri for the Appellant
Ms Kawaljit Kochar for JD Jain for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHAJ
This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and 591 order of the Punjab  Harvana High Court dismissing the appeal filed before it by the appellant
The suit relates to 9 Kanals 13 Marlas of land at village Qayampur
The said land was owned by Rajinder Singh and Baldev Singh the respondents and was sold while they were still minors by their mother Gurkirpal acting as their guardian to the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 30th July 1964
Upon attaining majority the respondents sued the appellant for possession of the said land on the ground that the sale thereof having been made without the permission of the court was void
The appellant in his written statement and at the time of hearing of the suit relied heavily upon the fact that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and that the sale should
therefore be deemed to have been a sale by the legal guardian of the respondents
It was also contended that the sale had been for legal necessity and the benefit of the respondents
The suit it was also alleged was barred by limitation because the sale being voidable and not void it had not been brought within three years of each of the respondents attaining majority
The trial court framed appropriate issues and came to the conclusion that it had not been proved that the sale was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the respondents that the sale by the respondent s mother without the permission of the court was void and that the sale was void and not voidable and the suit was therefore in time
The appeals filed by the appellant before the Additional District Judge
Ambala and the High Court failed
Learned counsel for the appellant placed great reliance upon the fact that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and submitted that the sale deed should therefore be taken to have been entered into by the natural guardian of the respondents for legal necessity and their benefit
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act sets out the powers of the natural guardian of a Hindu minor
The natural guardian of a Hindu Minor has power subject to the provisions of section 8 to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or his estate
The natural guardian however may not without the previous permission of the court sell any part of the immovable property of the minor
Any disposal of immovable property which is not necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or is without the previous permission of the court is voidable at the instance of the minor
In the instant case there is as found by the trial court and affirmed in appeal no evidence beyond the bare word of the appellant that the sale deed had been made for the benefit of the minor respondents and his evidence had been eroded in cross 592 examination so that there was no reliable evidence on record to show that the alienation in dispute had been made for the legal necessity or for the benefit of the plaintiffs
That the sale was effected without the permission of the court is not dispute
The sale is therefore in any event voidable
The question is whether in the circumstances of the case it may be said that the sale was effected by the father and natural guardian of the respondents because he had attested the sale deed executed by the mother of the respondents
In this behalf our attention was invited to this Court s judgment in Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre vs Pathankhan and ors
  This was a case in which it was held that the position in Hindu law was that when the father was alive he was the natural guardian and it was only after him that the mother became the natural guardian
Where the father was alive but had fallen out with the mother of the minor child and was living separately for several years without taking any interest in the affairs of the minor who was in the keeping and care of the mother it was held that in the peculiar circumstances the father should be treated as if nonexistent and therefore the mother could be considered as the natural guardian of the minor s person as well as property having power to bind the minor by dealing with her immovable property
In the present case there is no evidence to show that the father of the respondents was not taking any interest in their affairs or that they were in keeping and care of the mother to the exclusion of the father
In fact his attestation of the sale deed shows that he was very much existent and in the picture
If he was then the sale by the mother notwith standing the fact that the father attested it cannot be held to be a sale by the father and natural guardian satisfying the requirements of section 8
The Provisions of section 8 are devised to fully protect the property of a minor even from the depredations of his parents
Section 8 empowers only the legal guardian to alienate a minor s immovable property provided it is for the necessity or benefit of the minor or his estate and it further requires that such alienation shall be effected after the permission of the court has been obtained
It is difficult therefore to hold that the sale was voidable not void by reason of the fact that the mother of the minor respondents signed the sale deed and the father attested it
In the result the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs
GS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was one of the Directors of a Company registered under the Companies Act This company was also registered under the Factories Act and its object was to manufacture Motorcycles and its accessories
It had a Managing Director Joint Managing Director and Directors including the appellant for managing the establishment
The respondent an Enforcement Officer Regional Provident Fund Commissioner s Office laid 18 complaints against six accused including the appellant A 6 and the Company employer for the failure to deposit the contribution for the period October to December 1990 to the Provident Fund Account under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976 offences punishable under Section 14A of the 1952 Act read with para 76 of the 1952 Scheme
On the Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint the appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in the High Court for quashing the complaint as they did not contain the relevant averments constituting offences against the appellant
It was contended that the appellant was a mere Director of the Company that he was neither incharge of the company nor was 509 responsible to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Schemes thereunder
Reliance was placed on the definition of employer  in Section 2 e of the Act and the liability that had been fastened on the Managing Director or the Manager or occupier of the establishment to abide by the Act and the Schemes
The High Court dismissed the applications
The appellant appealed to this Court and contended that the reading the definition of employer  in section 2e of the Act with Sections 30141a and para 31 of the Scheme demonstrate that the employer in relation to the establishment means the owner or occupier of the factory which includes the Agent or the Manager of the factory under the Factories Act that there was an occupier and Manager recorded for the instant company and that they were Incharge of and were solely responsible to comply with the Act and the Schemes thereunder and that no specific averments have been made in the complaint making the appellant responsible for the management of the factory or the liability to comply with the Act and the Schemes
The complaint laid against the appellant was therefore illegal and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was vitiated by manifest error of law
On the question whether a Director of a Private Company who is neither an occupier nor a manager can be prosecuted under Section 14A of the Employees  Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 for violation of the Provident Fund Scheme
Dismissing the appeals this Court HELD By the Court K Ramaswamy  RM Sahai JJ 1
The Employees  Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 by Section 2e defines employer 
It is an inclusive definition and consists of two clauses which are vide in their sweep
In Clause i are included not only owner or occupier but even the agent or manager
When it comes to establishments other than factory it is not confined to owner or occupier but to all these who have central or are responsible for the affairs of the company
It includes even director
Therefore every such person who has the ultimate control of the affairs of the company becomes employer Section 2k defines occupier  which means the person who has the ultimate control of the factory and where the said affairs are entrusted to a Managing Agent such agent shall be deemed to be the occupier of the factory
Therefore by its extended definition its sweep is enlarged bringing within its scope the person who is incharge of or responsible forthe management or 1 510 ultimate control over the affairs of the factory or establishment
In the event of entrustment to a Managing Agent such Managing Agent shall also be deemed to be the occupier of the factory 
514 GH 2
In the instant case the appellant having been declared himself as one of the person Incharge of and was responsible for conduct of the business of the establishment or the factory in Form 5A the complaint and non compliance thereof having been enumerated in para 3 of the complaint it was validly made against the appellant along with other accused for the alleged Contravention
Necessary allegations bringing out the ingredient of offence have been made out in the complaint
Therefore the Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offence alleged against the appellant
518 A B Per K Ramaswamy J 1
The Act and the Schemes are self contained code for deduction from the salary of the employees and the responsibility to contribute in equiproportion of the employer s share and deposit thereof in the account within the specified time under the Act and the Schemes into the account It is a welfare legislation to provide benefits to the employees as per the schemes
They need mandatory compliance and violation thereof visits with penal action
514 E 2
Section 6 fastens the obligation on the employer
It postulates that the contribution to the fund shall be made by the employer
515 A 3
Under para 30 of the Employees  Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and the other Schemes the employer shall deposit the contribution to the Fund
515 B 4
The employer shall in the first instance pay both the contributions payable by himselfin the Scheme referred to as employer s contribution and also on behalf of the members employed by him directly or through a Contractor the contribution payable by such member in the Scheme re ferred to as member s contribution
515 G 5
Para 38 provides that the employer shall send to the Commissioner within 15 days of the close of every month pay the same to the Fund by separate Bank Drafts or cheques and the administrative charges within 25 days of close of the month the employer shall submit a monthly consolidated 511 statement as per form 5 with particulars mentioned therein
515 H 516 A 6
Para 76 also fastens criminal offence for non compliance of the provisions of the schemes on the persons incharge of and responsible for the management or control of the establishment
Every person who at the time the offence was committed was Incharge of and was responsible to the establishment for conduct of its business as well as the company shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly
517 C 8
Form 5 A read with para 36A give an option to the employer to furnish particulars of ownership and the branches of the department owners occupiers directors partners manager or other person or persons who have ultimate control over the affairs of such factory or establishment incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and compliance of the statutory obligation fastened under the Act and the relevant schemes
It is made mandatory to the employer to abide by the same and noncompliance thereof is liable for prosecution under Section 14A of the Act 517 D Municipal Corpn
of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi  Ors
  and Employees State Insurance Corpn
vs Gurdial Singh  Ors
1991 Supp 1 SCC 204 referred to
Employees  State Insurance Corporation vs Gurdial Singh  Ors
1991 Supp 1 SCC 204 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi  Ors
   distinguished
Per RM Sahai J 1
The Act is a welfare legislation enacted for the benefit of he employees engaged in the factories and establishments and is directed towards achieving this objective by enacting provisions requiring the employer to contribute towards Provident Fund Family Pension and Insurance and keep the Commissioner informed of it by riling regular returns and submitting details in forms prescribed for that purpose
518 G 512 2
Paragraph 36A of the Provident Fund Scheme framed by Central Government under Section 5 of the Act requires the employer in relation to a factory or other establishment to furnish Form 5A mentioning details of its branches and departments owners occupiers directors partners managers or any other person or persons who have ultimate control over the affairs of the factory or establishment
The purpose of giving details of the owners occupiers and directors etc is not an empty formality but a deliberate intent to widen the net of responsibility on any and every one for any act or omission
It is necessary as well as in absence of such responsibility the entire benevolent scheme may stand frustrated
519 A B 3
The anxiety of the Legislature to ensure that the employees are not put to any hardship in respect of Provident Fund is manifest from sections 10 and 11 of the Act
The farmer grants immunity to provident fund from being attached for any debt outstanding against the employee
And the latter provides for priority of provident fund contribution over other debts if the employer is adjudged insolvent or the company is winded up
Such being the nature of provident fund any violation or breach in this regard has to be construed strictly and against the employer
519 C 4
Sections 14 and 14A provides for penalties
The one applies to whosoever is guilty of avoiding payment of provident fund and to employer if he commits breach of provisions mentioned in its various clauses where as Section 14A fastens liability on certain person if the persons committing the offence is company
The scope of the two sections is same
Latter is wider in its sweep and reach
The former applies to anyone who is an employer or owner or is himself responsible for making payment whereas latter fastens the liability on all those who are responsible or are in charge of the company for the offence committed by it
519 D E 5
Sub sections 1 and 2 of Section 14A extend the liability for any offence by any person including a partner by virtue of explanation if he was incharge or was responsible to the company at the time of committing the offence
The expression was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business  are very wide in their import
It could not therefore be confined to employer only
520 D 6
To say therefore that since paragraph 36A requires an employer to do certain acts the responsibility for any violation of the provision should be confined to such employer or owner would be ignoring the purpose and 513 objective of the Act and the extended meaning of employer  in relation to establishments other than the factory
The declaration therefore in Form 5A in the instant case including appellant as one of the persons in charge and responsible for affairs of the company was in accordance with law therefore his prosecution for violation of the scheme does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or law
521 B C