Section 633(2) relief requires honesty and reasonableness; disputed responsibility for labour dues kept the director exposed to prosecution.

Relief under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 is confined to cases where the court can be satisfied that the officer acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused. In this matter, prosecutions for alleged non-deposit of provident fund and employees' state insurance dues had already been launched, the defaults were not disputed, and the petitioner's role as occupier or principal employer remained a contested question of fact. Those disputed issues were unsuitable for determination in company proceedings, and financial difficulty or protection granted to the company did not by itself justify immunity for the director from statutory proceedings. Relief was therefore declined, leaving the petitioner to raise defences before the competent criminal court.

---

---

Issues: Whether a nominated director was entitled to relief under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 against apprehended proceedings for non-deposit of provident fund and employees' state insurance dues.

Analysis: Relief under Section 633(2) is available only where the court is satisfied, on the material before it, that the officer has acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused. Here, prosecutions had already been launched for the alleged defaults, the petitioner did not dispute non-deposit of the employees' and employer's contributions, and the material disclosed a factual controversy as to his role in the management and his status as an occupier or principal employer under the relevant labour enactments. Those matters were not fit to be adjudicated in company proceedings when criminal cases were already pending and evidence was yet to be recorded. The existence of financial difficulty or protection granted to the company did not by itself justify granting immunity to the director from proceedings for statutory violations.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and the request for protection against proceedings was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition for relief from liability and proceedings arising out of the alleged defaults under the provident fund and employees' state insurance laws was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to raise his defences before the criminal or other competent courts.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief under Section 633(2) cannot be granted where prosecutions are already pending and the officer's asserted role and responsibility involve disputed questions of fact better left to the trial court.

---