Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11499 of 2006 ====================================================== M/S Roxy Cinema (an establishment under the Employees Provident & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952), through its Manager and representative, Sri L. N. Verma @ Lala Lakshi Narayan Verma, Son of Late Shashi Lal Das Roxy Cinema, at Motihari, East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kanth, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukul Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Meeta Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER *************** 09. 20.07.2012 There can never be meeting of minds between the Assessing Authority and the assessed. The Assessing Authorities feel they have a task to enforce the law, as provided for in the statute, i.e., Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The resistance put up by the assesse however is in the manner in which the assessment has been made and the liability, fixed devoid of established and recognized procedure. Petitioner was an establishment, engaged in the business of running a cinema hall in the name of M/s Roxy Cinema, located at Motihari in the district of East Champaran. They have been brought under the ambit of the Provident Fund Act, as the establishment was covered with PF Code No. BR 783 allotted to them. Some complaints with regard to non-compliance, non-deposit of the contributions made by the employees as well as the contribution of the employer became the bone of contention. Several proceedings Patna High Court CWJC No.11499 of 2006 (9) dt.20-07-2012 2/8 were initiated earlier and may be under certain threat or coercion, compliance was also done, details of which are not required to be noted in this part of the order. The issue now is the assessment, which has been made in the purported exercise of power vested under section 7A to the Provident Fund Commissioner and the order passed by him on 29.10.2004, contained in Annexure – 1. Contention of learned senior counsel, representing the petitioner, is that any liability which is decided or fixed upon an establishment must be based on adequate evidence of, who are the beneficiaries or who the employees are, who are entitled to the benefit of such deductions or deposit, to be made by the establishment. A wishy-washy kind of enquiry merely because the assesse was trying to stone-wall or resist the enquiry may not absolve the Assessing Authority to do what is required to be done by him under law. Very wide powers have been vested in the said authority to do the job or enforce the law in case of alleged evasiveness or default on the part of an establishment. Submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is that the finding given with regard to the number of employees in the order is not corroborated or based on any evidence. A finding without evidence is no finding in the eye of law. A bald statement made by one Ganesh Chandra Ghosh, a so called ex-employee of the establishment that he was a permanent employee, from which period to which period he was not very sure of and his assertion that at a point of time there were 19 employees working in the Patna High Court CWJC No.11499 of 2006 (9) dt.20-07-2012 3/8 establishment could not form the basis for the assessment. Curiously the statement made by the said person that when he retired on 13th of April, 2001 there was only 6 employees was not taken into consideration when the order was passed in 2004. If one part of the statement of the ex-employee was taken to reflect the actual state of affairs with regard to the number of employees at a point of time, he fails to understand as to why rest of the statement that there were only 6 employees left on the date of his retirement, i.e., 13th of April, 2001, was not taken into consideration. Obviously, some of the assertions made in the writ and submission that the establishment had seen good days, followed by bad days and long closure is evident from the fact that the cinema hall cannot be run by only 6 employees at any given point of time. Obviously, there was a skeleton staff, only taking care of the establishment when it was closed. The decree is a pointer to how the P.F. authority has adopted dual standards in adjudication. When assessment order was being passed on 29.10.2004, all these aspects were required to be looked into by the authorities of the Provident Fund, for the reason that the object of enforcement or compelling compliance is not to gather money from establishments or units to meet any pre-conceived target. The object behind the Act is to collect the fund, which is meant for welfare of the workmen, who are required to be taken care of, once they superannuate. In absence of the identified workmen or employees, who are entitled to such benefit, a liability cannot be saddled upon an establishment in the name of compliance or Patna High Court CWJC No.11499 of 2006 (9) dt.20-07-2012 4/8 enforcement of law No collection can be made by the P.F. authorities for faceless, nameless or non-identifiable workmen on mere head-count or herd count. The Court is reinforced in this opinion by having a look at the statement of Objects and Reasons. A decision which has been cited on behalf of the petitioner rendered in the case of Food Corporation of India Versus Provident Fund Commissioner, reported in 1990 (1) SCC 68, does have a bearing or reflection on the question, which has been raised at the bar with regard to validity of the assessment order, contained in Annexure – 1. In this regard the observation of the Apex Court rendered in the said decision, especially in paragraph nos. 6 to 9 are reproduced here-in-below for the reason that the Hon'ble Apex Co

Applicable IPC Section: 228

Statute Text:
Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Intentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding. Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.