Union Of India vs R. Dhandayuthapani

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the complaints against the respondent under Section 14(1A) and Section 14(A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, on the grounds of his resignation as Director prior to the complaints. The Court emphasized that the question of the respondent's liability for non-deposit of provident fund dues should be determined during trial, as the respondent was still listed as a Director in official documents post-resignation. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside, directing the Trial Court to proceed with the complaints.