Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes criminal plaint against EPFO, ESIC officials

Advertisement

Chandigarh, March 3

In a significant order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a criminal complaint filed against the officers of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and the Employees State Insurance Corporation. Among other things, the Bench took note of the provisions of the EPF Act on protection of action taken in good faith.

Justice Deepak Gupta of the high court observed that the complainant had alleged that his establishment was neither covered under the EPF Act, nor did he get it registered under it. The Bench noted that an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of the EPFO initiated proceedings against the complainant’s establishment as it had failed to remit the contribution and administrative charges from July 2015 to December 2015.

The observation

• Referring to Section 18 and 18A of the EPF Act, Justice Gupta observed that the presiding officer of a tribunal or any authority referred to in another provision cannot be prosecuted for anything done in good faith
• The officials of the corporation are deemed public servants and any prosecution requires prior sanction

Justice Gupta observed the respondent was summoned to appear before Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Bathinda, on February 9, 2016, for the first time. It was important to note that appearance on the complainant’s behalf was made before the EPF authorities for the first time on April 11, 2016, and continued subsequently.

Before the final order was pronounced, the respondent-complainant filed a complaint on January 12, 2018, apprehending that an adverse order could be announced against him. It was evidently filed with a malafide intention to wriggle out of the liability.

“Instead of taking the statutory route i.e. waiting for the order to be passed in the pending proceedings before the EPF authorities, where the complainant had already raised the dispute about the applicability of his establishment under the EPF Act; or filing the appeal under Section 7(I) of the Act before the tribunal, the respondent- complainant preferred to take a malicious route by filing a criminal complaint in the court of jurisdictional magistrate to haul up the authorities, acting within the purview of law,” Justice Gupta observed.

Referring to Section 18 and 18A of the EPF Act on the protection of action taken in good faith, Justice Gupta observed the provisions made it clear that the prosecution did not lie against the presiding officer of a tribunal or any authority referred to in another provision for anything done in good faith or intended to be done in pursuance of “the Act, the scheme, the pension scheme or the insurance scheme”.

The court also ruled that officers of the corporation were deemed public servants and any prosecution required prior sanction.