Employer liability under provident fund law cannot attach to directors where Form No. 5A names another manager responsible for the establishment.

Under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, liability as "employer" attaches to the person who has statutory control of the establishment, including a manager where the affairs are entrusted to one. Where Form No. 5A expressly named another person as the manager and responsible officer, the directors could not be treated as employers merely by virtue of their office. The complaint therefore did not disclose a basis to prosecute the petitioners under the Act, and the proceedings against them were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, being directors of the company, could be prosecuted as "employer" for default in remitting provident fund contributions when Form No. 5A specifically named another person as the manager responsible for the establishment.

Analysis: The definition of "employer" under section 2(e) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 fixes liability, in the case of an establishment whose affairs are entrusted to a manager, on that manager as the person having control for the purposes of the Act. Section 14A fastens liability on persons in charge of the company only where the statutory requirements for such responsibility are met. On the facts, Form No. 5A specifically identified the eighth accused as the manager and the person responsible for the conduct of the establishment. That express declaration excluded the other directors from the statutory description of employer for the present prosecution, and the complaint did not disclose a basis to rop in the petitioners merely because they were directors.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not liable to be prosecuted as employers under the Act, and the proceedings against them were quashed.

---