Principal employer liability under the Employees' State Insurance Act upheld where company records showed supervision, control, and failure to remit deductions.

A person shown in company records as General Manager and exercising supervision and control can fall within the definition of principal employer under Section 2(17) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. On the facts, the appellant failed to displace the concurrent findings that he was responsible for remitting employees' deducted contributions, so criminal liability for non-deposit under Section 85(a) was attracted. The Court found no reliable material, such as appointment records or pay slips, to support the contrary designation, and the lesser sentence imposed did not justify interference. The conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was liable as the principal employer/managing agent under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for non-remittance of contributions deducted from employees' wages, and whether the conviction and sentence called for interference.

Analysis: The appellant did not successfully displace the concurrent findings of the trial court, first appellate court and High Court that he was described in the company records as General Manager and that he functioned within the ambit of Section 2(17) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 as a person responsible for supervision and control. The fact that the company was sick or that another designation was asserted was held insufficient in the absence of reliable supporting documents such as appointment records or pay slips. The Court also held that failure to deposit the amount deducted from employees' salaries constituted the offence under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and that the lesser sentence imposed under Section 85(i)(b) did not warrant interference on the facts of the case. The reliance on the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and on the decision concerning sentencing discretion was found not to advance the appellant's case.

Conclusion: The appellant was held liable under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the conviction as well as the sentence were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the criminal conviction and punishment awarded for failure to remit employees' insurance contributions were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A person shown on the company record as responsible for supervision and control can fall within the definition of principal employer under Section 2(17) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and non-remittance of employees' deducted contributions attracts criminal liability under Section 85 of that Act.

---