IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 11280 of 2008(P) -------------------------- C.NO..857/2005 of MUN-MAGI COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA C.NO..858/2005 of MUN-MAGI COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ANU THANKACHAN, CHARAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, UMMANNOOR, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EPF ORGANISATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 11280 of 2008 P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a woman, has filed this writ petition to quash Exts. P12 series, P13 series and P14 series, prosecutions initiated against her by the Provident Fund authorities. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner in these prosecutions is that she had failed/refused to make remittances towards the provident fund for the period 4/99 to 8/01, during which period she is alleged to be the lessee of the cashew factory in question. The petitioner claims that she had allegedly made payments during the relevant period. An excessive demand was made by the Provident Fund authorities. In these circumstances she was obliged to come to this Court with W.P.C. No.18361 of 2005 and in that Ext.P5 judgment was passed in her favour. The Provident Fund authorities were directed to re-assess the amounts actually due and in pursuance of that, that exercise was W.P.C.No. 11280 of 2008 2 undertaken and Ext.P8 order dt. 28.10.2005 was passed by the Provident Fund authorities. Thereafter the petitioner had discharged the entire liability. But still the Provident Fund authorities are proceeding with prosecutions in Exts. P12 series, P13 series and P14 series. It is prayed that powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution may be invoked to quash such prosecutions. 3. Notice was given to the respondents. The respondents had entered appearance through their standing counsel. The learned counsel submits that the fact that a revised demand was issued in pursuance of Ext.P5 judgment and that amounts demanded vide Ext.P8 were all discharged long later is no reason for the petitioner to claim absolution from the culpable liability. The burden is on the employer to make the payment in time. That is not made by the employer even admittedly. Even according to the petitioner the amounts were paid only after Ext.P8 demand was made. The mere fact that the quantum of liability was fixed later or reduced cannot justify a claim for absolution from liability. The learned counsel for the respondents further points out that even though the demand was W.P.C.No. 11280 of 2008 3 made on 28.10.2005, even that payment was made long later on 25.7.2007. In these circumstances, in any view of the matter, there is no bonafides in the claim for quashing of proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondents relies on the decisions of the Madras High Court in Hackbridge Hewitic and Easun Ltd. v. Provident Fund Inspector (1999 III LLJ (Supp) 210) as also an unreported decision of this Court in Crl.A. No.748 of 2001 dt. 19.7.2006 to press his contention that the subsequent discharge of the liability cannot have the effect of obliteration of culpable liability. Absolution from such culpable liability cannot be claimed on the ground that amounts originally demanded or modified demand has subsequently been satisfied, contends counsel. 4. I find merit in the objections raised by the learned standing counsel for the respondents. I am of the opinion that the petitioner does not have a case to persuade this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and quash the proceedings. She must certainly appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all her contentions. W.P.C.No. 11280 of 2008 4 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all her contentions before the learned Magistrate. I have only chosen to hold that the proceedings do not deserve to be quashed invoking the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. (R. BASANT) Judge tm