Provident fund exemption breaches can trigger penal liability, with contribution defaults still punishable despite exemption status.

An exempted establishment under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act remains subject to the Act's substantive contribution obligations, and breach of exemption conditions can attract penal liability under Section 14. Cancellation of exemption under Section 17(4) is only an administrative consequence and does not exhaust the penal field, so Section 14(2A) may apply where exemption conditions are violated. On a contextual reading, failure by an exempted establishment to make provident fund contributions to its own trust also constitutes default under Section 6 and attracts Section 14(1A). The proceedings could therefore continue for offences under Sections 14(1A) and 14(2A).

---

---

Issues: (i) whether cancellation of an exemption granted under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is the only penalty for breach of the conditions of exemption, or whether Section 14(2A) is attracted; (ii) whether default by an exempted establishment in making provident fund contributions to its own trust attracts Section 14(1A) read with Section 6.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of an exemption granted under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is the only penalty for breach of the conditions of exemption, or whether Section 14(2A) is attracted.

Analysis: Section 14(2A) applies where there is contravention of any provision of the Act or of any condition subject to which exemption under Section 17 was granted, provided no other penalty is elsewhere provided by or under the Act. The exempted establishment had failed to comply with the conditions attached to the exemption, especially the requirement that its provident fund rules be followed in all respects. However, cancellation under Section 17(4) is only withdrawal of the privilege of exemption and is not, in the statutory setting, a penal consequence equivalent to imprisonment or fine. Reading Sections 14 and 17 together, and having regard to the welfare object of the legislation, the cancellation mechanism does not exhaust the penal field and does not bar Section 14(2A).

Conclusion: Section 14(2A) is attracted and cancellation of exemption under Section 17(4) is not the only or equivalent penalty.

Issue (ii): Whether default by an exempted establishment in making provident fund contributions to its own trust attracts Section 14(1A) read with Section 6.

Analysis: The definitions in Section 2 begin with the qualifying words "unless the context otherwise requires," and the scheme of the Act shows that the contribution obligation continues in substance even where the establishment is exempted and maintains its own provident fund arrangement. The exemption is intended to secure benefits not less favourable than those under the statutory scheme, not to free the establishment from the duty to make contributions. In that context, the words "contribution," "fund" and "scheme" are not confined so narrowly as to exclude a private provident fund scheme maintained by an exempted establishment. On a contextual and purposive construction, failure to make the required contribution to the trust amounts to default in complying with Section 6 and falls within Section 14(1A).

Conclusion: Section 14(1A) is attracted to the exempted establishment's default in provident fund contribution.

Final Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to termination of the proceedings at the threshold, and the trial could proceed for offences under Sections 14(1A) and 14(2A) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption under Section 17 does not extinguish the substantive obligation to maintain provident fund contributions, and breach of the exemption conditions may attract penal liability under Section 14 where the statutory context shows that cancellation of exemption is only a separate administrative consequence.

---