JUDGMENT
S.C. Malte, J.
1. This group of appeals is being disposed of by this common judgment because in all these appeals, there is a common question of law and fact.
2. The Provident Fund Inspector, as the complainant, filed a number of cases against the respondents. The allegations were that respondent No. 1-M/s. Fuel Injections Ltd., the company and the firm run by its Chairman Shri V.B. Desai, Director Shri K.P. Gupta, another Director Shri Atul K. Bhagwati, Managing Director Shri Vijay D. Chari, Chief Accountant and Personal Manager-Shri T.S. Venkatraman, and Manager Shri B.N. Shrikant – respondents herein have committed an offence under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act by failing to contribute huge amount. It is not necessary to go into the details of these contributions of the provident fund.
3. The accused were duly served and appeared. The accused, by filing an application, informed to the trial Court that only Managing Director, Shri Vijay D. Chari, was incharge of the company’s administration. It was also informed that the said company was in a financial difficulty and presently the liquidation proceedings were under progress. The allegations made in the complaint were admitted, and it was submitted that only the Managing Director Shri Vijay D. Chari was responsible for the lapses in depositing the provident fund. The trial Court accepted the plea of guilt and fined Rs. 500/-, collectively for all accused. Against that order dated 30-4-1985, these appeals have been filed.
4. In this Court, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that delay in filing these appeals, has been sufficiently explained and is attributable to the time consumed in getting the matter processed before appeals could be filed. It was submitted that there is a delay of 30 days and in the interest of justice it is necessary to condone the delay.
5. On merits, it was submitted that as per the provision of section 14(1-A) read with section 14-A of the Employee’s Provident Funds Act, minimum sentence of not less than one month should have been imposed unless there are good and adequate reasons to impose less than minimum penalty.
6. None appears for the accused.
7. The impugned judgment was passed on 30-4-1985. An application for certified copy of the order was submitted on 14-5-1985 and it was delivered on 2-8-1985. It is thus obvious that the time consumed in obtaining certified copy of the order can be deducted. After deducting the said period, it would appear that there is a delay of about 30 days while filing the appeals on 17-10-1985. In the Appeal Memo, it is explained that the delay has occurred due to procedural time in getting it through various offices. The delay, thus, explained, is quite satisfactory. After obtaining the certified copy on 2-8-1985, it was forwarded to the Inspector of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay, on 9-8-1985 and it was immediately sent to the Legal Cell on 9-8-1985. The Legal Cell took some time to prepare the grounds of appeal till 25-9-1985. After grounds were, thus, ready, a proposal was sent to the Law & Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Bombay, on 10-10-1985 and necessary Resolution for preparing appeals were passed on 14-10-1985. Soon thereafter appeal came to be filed on 17-10-1985. As per Article 115 (b) of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is 60 days for filing an appeal against the impugned sentence or order. Thus, there is a delay of about 30 days which is adequatety explained. There appears enough diligence in prosecuting the matter. The time consumed seems to be inevitable in the official procedure required before the appeal could be filed. I, therefore, hold that delay in these cases deserves to be condoned.
8. On merits, it was submitted that minimum sentence as per the provisions of section 14 Clause (1-A) of Provident Fund Act should have been imposed. Section 14 Clause (1-A) of the Employees Provident Fund Act provides punishment to the person who contravenes or makes default in complying with the provisions of section 6 or Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 17 in so far as it relates to the payment of inspection charges, or paragraph 38 of the scheme in so far as it relates to the payment of administrative charges. The punishment prescribed is to the extent of imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months. The said provision is qualified with a proviso that the sentence shall not be less than three months in case of default in payment of the employees’ contribution which has been deducted by the employer from the employees’ wages. It further provides that in any other case, such sentence shall not be less than one month. In addition to the sentence of imprisonment, there is a provision for liability to pay fine which may extend to Rs.2000/-. This provision is qualified by a proviso that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term or of fine only in lieu of imprisonment.
9. In these cases, I find that the accused/respondent have admitted that they have not contributed to the provident fund and administrative charges. There are thus quite a large number of cases in which such contributions by the employer in respect of his share, and in some of these cases in respect of the employees’ share, have not been contributed. The record shows that there is a plea of admission by the Managing Director Shri Vijay D. Chari, respondent herein.
10. The trial Court’s order indicates that he has only put up a rubber stamp while passing the order and has filled in only some minor details, such as amount of fine, in default thereof imprisonment, etc. It clearly, therefore appears that he has not at all applied his mind to the quantum of sententence to be passed against the accused. Therefore, I am left with no other alternative but to send the matters back to the trial Court to consider the matters in the light of the submission that may be made by the accused in the trial Court. While admitting the plea of guilt, the accused/respondent Vijay D. Chari has indicated that the company has gone into liquidation due to financial difficulties. But nothing has been placed on record to indicate as to what was the financial position of the company when it was supposed to make contributions to the provident fund. I, therefore, pass the following order.
11. The delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned. The appeals are allowed, the impugned orders of the trial Court are set aside and the cases are remanded back to the trial Court for considering the responsibility of each of the accused and the quantum of sentence in the light of submissions and material, if any, placed by the accused. The accused are directed to remain present in the trial Court on 6-12-1994, for hearing after recording plea of each accused.