IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:   President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:              Member

Dated this, the  19^th   day of  February   2010

CC.52/2009

Suresh Babu,

‘Dream Land’,

Anayidukku Road,

Opp.Kannur Dist.Co.op.Bank,

P.O.Thana, Kannur 12.

(Rep. ByAdv.T.V.Haridas)                                           Complainant

1. General Manager/Director (Admin),

    Institute of Fire & Safety Technology

   30/2897 A, Patta, Kochi 682038.

   (Rep. by Adv.C.K.Ambikasuthan)

2. The Centre Head,

   IFAST, SHEMZY COMPLEX,

   New Bus stand, Narangapuram,

   Thalassery.

   (Rep. by Adv.C.K.Ambikasuthan)                             Opposite Parties

3. Commissioner,

    Employees Provident Fund,

    Sub Regional Office, Kannur.

4. Commissioner,

    Provident Fund

    Sub Regional Office, Kochi.

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the provident fund dues of the complainant with compensation and cost.

            The case of the complainant is that he was employed with 2^nd opposite party as faculty with effect from 13.9.07. He retired from service on 31.12.08. The Provident fund was paid by the 2^nd opposite party as per KRE/24326 with 3^rd opposite party. The amount of employee’s share was deducted from the salary by 2^nd opposite party. The amount due on retirement is Rs.12, 800/-. The application for final withdrawal of PF amount was submitted through 2^nd opposite party on 7.1.09 and till this day the amount is not disbursed in spite of repeated demands. The complainant retired from service of 2^nd opposite party with an intention to settle the life by opting self employment. But due to non receipt of PF dues complainant could not meet the financial commitments. Due to this illegal act of opposite parties the complainant was put too much hardship and loss. All these misfortune is caused due to the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

In pursuance of the notice issued by the Forum opposite parties filed their version.

            Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their version admitting that 2^nd opposite party is the centre Head and is working under 1^st opposite party. They admit that the complainant was working as a faculty member at Thalalssery centre with effect from 13.9.07 and resigned on his own from the service on 31.12.08. 2^nd opposite party had immediately on receipt of the claim for refund had forwarded to 1^st opposite party for onward transmission to the PF authorities at Kochi. The 1^st opposite party immediately  on receipt of the same from Thalasery centre had submitted the same without any delay to the PF authorities, Kochi.The  opposite parties 1 and 2 denied the averment that they showed deficiency in service. The delay alleged to be caused on the side of the 3^rd opposite party is legally permitted period for processing and verification of the claim for refund from the complainant and now 3^rd opposite party had settled the refund claim from the complainant and cheques were issued so there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2  and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            3^rd opposite party filed version submitting that the 3^rd opposite party is an unnecessary party since the complainant is not a subscriber of EPF scheme under the sub Regional office, Kannur and 3^rd opposite party is not maintaining the EPF account in respect of establishment in which the complainant was employed. The EPF account is being maintained under the office of the Regional P.F Commissioner, Kochi, sub office, the 3^rd opposite party further submitted that the establishment M/s. Institute of Fire and Safety Technology in which the complainant was employed has been covered under Employees Provident Funds and miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 1.1.08.

            The 4^th opposite party filed version contending that the account No.30 was allotted to the complainant under the jurisdiction of them. The date of commencement of Membership of the complainant in the EPF scheme is 1.1.08 and the complainant left the service on 31.12.08. The complainant submitted application form 19 for availing EPF benefits and Form 10 C for availing withdrawal benefit under EP Scheme 1995 only on 17.3.09. Accordingly complainant’s E.P accounts were settled finally and account payee cheques bearing No.27392 dt.26.3.09 for Rs.8718/- and No.206467 dated 26.3.09 for   Rs.4, 453/- was forwarded to SBI main branch, Fort Road, Kannur. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Upon the above pleadings the following issues have raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 and B 2.

Issues 1 to 3

            The complainant’s case is that he was an employee of Institute of Fire and Safety Technology from 13.9.07 and is a member of E.P. Scheme and is regularly paying contribution and resigned on 31.12.08 from the above said job and applied for E.P.F benefits, but the opposite parties had not paid the same in time. In order to prove this he has produced Ext.A1, the certificate to show that his salary was increased from 1.7.08 onwards, A2 cash payment voucher, A3 copy of withdrawal application, A4 is the copy of Form 19.   Opposite parties 3 and 4 also produced Exts.B1 and B2, the copies of wage particulars. The opposite parties admit that the complainant was an employee and is the member of EPF. According to 4^th opposite party the opposite parties establishment has been covered under Employees Provident Funds and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 with effect from 1.1.08 and hence the date of commencement of Membership of the complainant in the PF scheme is 1.1.08. The complainant has not disputed this and the Ext.B1 and B2 i.e. Contribution card is also shows that contribution of the employee is paid from 2008 onwards. So we hold that the date of commencement of the membership of the complainant is from 1.1.08. The wage register produced by the employer i.e. M/s.IFAST, complainant had drawn only Rs.4550/- from January 2008 to October 2008 and Rs.5200/- for November 2008 and Rs.2423/- for December 2008 and the PF contribution were made as per this. Accordingly the contribution for the months from January 2008 to October 2008 was made at the rate of Rs.546/- and Rs.624/- for the month of November and Rs.291/- for the month of December as employee share. So the employee has paid Rs.6375/- as his share at the rate of 12%. The employer also paid share at the rate of 3.67% towards EPF and at the rate of 8.33% towards EPS. So towards EPF, the employee has paid Rs.1, 950/- as total amount and hence the total contribution is for  Rs.6375 + 1950 i.e. Rs.8325/-

            Interest @ 8.5% on monthly basis   = Rs.393/-

                                                                      =8325 + 393 = 8718

            As per Para 14 of Employees Pension Fund, 1995, if a member has not rendered eligible service prescribed in paragraph 9 on the date of exit, he shall be entitled for a withdrawal benefit as laid down in Table D

            So the complainant is eligible for the amount as withdrawal benefit.

            Complainant’s average monthly pay as per Para ii (2) of EPF Scheme 1995

 i.e. Total wage for one year = Rs.53, 123/-

  = 53123 X 30

                                                                        365

                                                              = 4366

            The complainant rendered only one year service under EPS, 1995

 So the factor as per table D                     = 1.02

 Withdrawal benefit is                               = 436 x 1.02

                                                                = 4453

So the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.8717 + 4453 = Rs.13, 171/-.

            The opposite parties already paid the amount on 26.3.09.

            Regarding deficiency, the complainant retired from service on 31.12.08 and given his application to his employer on 8.1.09 as per Ext.A3. But there is no evidence before us to show the date of submitting application before EPF authority by the employer. The version filed by 4^th opposite party shows that the application form 10 C was submitted by the applicant only on 17.3.09 and EPF/EPS accounts were settled finally and account payee cheques bearing No.27392 dt.26.3.09 was forwarded to the SBI. But the complainant has no case that the employer has submitted the application within time. So it can be seen that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4. But from Exts.A3 and A4 it is seen that the complainant has submitted application on 7.1.09. Any way it is only a normal period for the processing and verification of the claim. So we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and passed order accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

                                        Sd/-                Sd/-                Sd/-

                                  President            Member           Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Letter dt.14.8.08 issued by OP

A2.Copy of the cash payment voucher dt.14.11.08 issued by IFAST

A3.Copy of the letter dt.7.1.09 sent to OP2.

A4.copy of the Form 19

Exhibits for the opposite parties:

B1 &B 2. Copies of the Form 3A

Witness examined for either side: Nil

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                        Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur