The Enforcement Officer vs Naduvattom Gmv Sahakarana … on 10 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.A.No. 1206 of 2001()



1. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EPFO
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. NADUVATTOM GMV SAHAKARANA SANGHAM
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.P.HARISH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :10/02/2009

 O R D E R
                      V.GIRI, J
                    -------------------
                   Crl.A.1206/2001
                    --------------------
      Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009

                    JUDGMENT

The Enforcement Officer of the EPF

Organization, who sought to prosecute the

respondents for willful non payment of the

contribution under the EPF Act, has come up in

appeal after obtaining leave of this Court.

S.T.No.3436/99 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, Tirur, was registered against the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 14

(1A) and 14A of the EPF & MP Act read with Para

76D of the EPF scheme, 1952, on the ground that the

Society had failed to pay the employees’ and

employers’ contribution for the period from July, 1998

to September, 1998. The Court below entered an

order of acquittal, inter alia finding that the

complainant has failed to prove that the first accused

establishment, Co-operative Society, registered

under the Co-operative Societies Act, will come within

the purview of Section 16 of the EPF and MP act,

1952.

Crl.A.1206/2001
2

2. A similar order of acquittal by the Court below was

upheld by this Court in Crl.A.89/2002 on identical

grounds. I am in respectful agreement with the

reasoning adopted by the learned Judge of this Court

upholding similar order of acquittal entered as regards

the same establishment. It has to be found that only

such Co-operative Societies, where the number of

employees are more than 50 and which are aided by

power, will come within the purview of the Act. Other

Societies are exempted. No materials are placed on

record to show that the first accused establishment is

not exempted.

3. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the

order of acquittal is perfectly justified. The appeal is

bereft of merit and hence dismissed.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs