Source: http://www.hrinfo.in/2010/06/prosecution-launching-of.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:01:13+00:00

Document:
• Prosecution of all the Directors of a Company for not depositing of the Employees' Provident Fund contribution after deducting from the employees will not be justified and only those persons would be liable who have actually deducted the employees' contribution and not the other person.
Kailashkumar Radhakrishan Kilnoria v. State of Gujarat, (1994) III LLJ (Supp) 428: 1991 LLR 733: 1991(63) FLR 794. (Guj HC).
• Initiation of prosecution proceedings by the Provident Fund authorities without deciding the pending representation will not be valid.
Motoshri Mudranalaya v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) III LJ (Supp) 428: 1991 LLR 900: 1991 (63) FLR 736: 1991-II LLN 900 (Bom HC).
• Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 - Paragraphs 36A, 43, 67(b) ­Prosecution against the Directors of the Company - For non-submission of statements in Form No. 12 and contribution cards in Form No. 3A - Alleging that all the accused are the persons in charge of the said establishment. Respondent for the conduct of its business. Except against the petitioner, the complaint is untenable against other 13 accused.
Transport Corporation of India Ltd. v. RM. Gandhi, 1991 LIC 2017: 1992 LLR 40: 1992(64) FLR 697 (Bom HC).
• Prosecution of Directors for default in payment of fund amount in time - Filing of declaration by the Company on Form SA - Stating the names of Managing Director and the two Directors including the appellant - As not only the owners but as in charge are responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment - Prosecution of the appellant - Director being in charge and responsible for the Management of the factory - Whether legal? Yes.
Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wodiyar v. Enforcement Officer, Mysore, (1993) 3 see 217: AIR 1993 SC 1656: 1993 LIC 1359: (1993) 2 LLN 69: 1993 LLR 497 (SC).
• Executive or the Financial Director will not be liable for prosecution under EPF & MP Act when General Manager is responsible for compliance of the same.
B.I.E. Ltd. Cawnpore Woollen Mills Branch v. The Provident Fund Inspector, Kanpur, 1998 LLR 266 (All HC).
• Prosecution of a Managing Director, not incharge of company's business, for failure to pay P.F.'s contributions will not be justified.
Rajgopalachari S. v. Bellary Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd., 1998 LLR 344 (Karn HC).
• A Director of the company being incharge of administration will be liable for prosecution for non compliance of Provident Funds Act.
Bhagchand Jain v. P.F. Inspector, (1994) 4 LLN 939: 1998 CWN 595: 2000 II LLJ 599: 1999 LLR 912: 1999 (82) FLR 608 (Cal HC).
• Acquittal of employer for violation of EPF & MP Act will be justified when the Act did not apply to the establishment.
State through Inspector of Provident Fund, Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa, Bhubaneshwar v. M/s. Rameshwarlal Mallram, 2000 LLR 346 (Ori HC).
• Arrest of a Director declaring as employer in Form 5 for non-payment of provident fund dues will not be set-aside.
Binod Kumar Biyala v. The Regional Provident Fund Organization, West Bengal, (2001) 88 FLR 216: (2001) I LLJ 305: 2000 LLR 1172 (Cal HC).
• Recovery of EPF contributions will not be stalled on company's plea that it is before BIFR.
Universal Paper Mills Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2001) 91 FLR 591: (2001) 2 LLJ 1139: 2002 LLR 41 (Cal HC).
• Prosecution of a Director for non-deposit of EPF contributions is to be re­examined to determine responsibility.
M. Shivram v. The Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Funds Shimoga, 2002 LLR 132 (Karn HC).
• Prosecution of Managing Director for non-deposit of EPF contribution cannot be quashed because the offences were committed before his joining.
Aniruddha Kumar Dhote v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 94 FLR 94: 2002 LLR 914 (Bom HC).
• High Court cannot direct closure or prosecution for non-payment of provident contribution due to pendency of proceedings under SICA.
Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Provident Fund Inspector, (2002) 101 FJR 128: (2002) 3 LLN 826: (2002) III LLJ 422: 2002 LLR 943 (AP HC).
• A private complaint filed by General Secretary of the Union for prosecution of the executives of the Company will not be set aside when the EPF contributions amounting to Rs. 1,72,80, 485 have been deducted but not deposited.
Shrikant Bangur v. Shree Synthetics Shramik Union, 2004 LLR 403 (MP HC).
• Prosecution of a Director of the Company for default in payment of EPF contributions will be quashed when the Director was not in over all charge of the Company and also he had ceased to be Director as under revealed from the Form 32 the Companies Act before the alleged non-payment of contributions.
R. Dhandayuthnpani v. C.R. Kaleel, 2004 LLR 142 (Mad HC).
• A complaint for prosecution in defaulting the payment of provident fund dues as filed after three years from the default will barred by limitation when the punishment for violation of the provisions is also prescribed for three years.
R. Dhandayuthapani v. C.R. Kaleel, 2004 LLR 142 (Mad HC).
• Prosecution of directors of a Company for non deposit of EPF contributions though deducted from the wages of the employees will be quashed since they do not come within the purview of 'employer' as defined by the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Sharad Mittersain Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) I Mah LJ 776: 2004 LLR 367 (Bom HC).
• Penal action and withdrawal of the exemption by the PF Authorities will be set aside when there was reasonable explanation for not producing the balance sheet.
Mitra S.K. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (1) West Bengal, (2) Sikkim, (2005) 30 AIC 764: 2005 LLR 428 (Cal HC).
• Issuance of arrest warrant of the employer for failure to furnish the required information for determination of provident fund contribution will he gross misuse of power.
Vignan Education Development Society, Ongole v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Authority, Guntur, 2005 LLR 451 (AP HC).
• Prosecution under IPC for non-deposit of provident contributions despite deductions will not be quashed.
Ram Prasad Sao v. State of Bihar, 2007 LLR 1172 (Jhar HC).
• Acquittal of employer will not to be interfered when the Provident Fund Inspector did not lead supporting evidence.
Provident Fund Inspector, Kota v. Bhagi Bai, 2008 LLR 1048 (Raj HC).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.