C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/88
COMPLAINANT :1) Narayan Ch. Adhikari,
S/O Lt. Baidyanath Adhikari,
P.O. mohanpur, Nadia,
2) Dulal Adhikari
S/o Lt. Nanigopal Adhikari,
Vill. + P.O. Mohanpur, Nadia
3) Krishna Mukherjee
W/o Sri Panchu Gopal Mukherjee,
P.O. Subarnapur, Nadia
4) Jiban Krishna Nag
S/o Lt. Abani Mohan Nag,
P.O. Mllabalia, Nadia
Mantu De Biswas
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Asit Paul
2) Sujit Paul
3) Amit Paul
4) Sumit Paul
S/o. Late Sasadhar Paul,
of Netaji Subhas Road,
Chakdaha, Dist. Nadia
5) Sunil Kr. Paul
6) Anil Kr. Paul
S/o Lt. Subal Ch. Paul
Of Netaji Subhas Road,
Chakdaha, Dist. Nadia
7) The Regional P.F. Commissioner
Sub-Regional Office,
Barrackpore, 14/15 B.T. Road,
Titagarh, Kolkata – 700 119
8) The Regional P.F. Commissioner
Regional Office, Kolkata,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhaban,
DK – Block, Sector – II,
Salt Lake City,
Kolkata – 700 091
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 27th May, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainants is that they were employees of Urvashi Cinema Hall, Mohanpur, Haringhata, Dist. Nadia and were appointed by the then proprietors of the hall on permanent basis. It is their further case that they usually got their monthly salary from the proprietors of the hall after deducting the PF contribution amount from their salaries. But the owners never issued any receipt or document to them regarding the deposit of their deducted money towards PF amount. In 2002 the said cinema hall was declared as closed and since then they are unemployed. But the owners did not pay them the PF amount or gratuity amount till now, though they time and again requested the OPs to pay the same. Thereafter, they lodged a complaint to the office of the Recovery Officer of Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas. The Recovery Officer started a case being No. 01/EPF/BKP/08-09 and the reference No. is R-Recovery/WB 27268/SRO/BKP/429 and sent a notice of the demand to the legal heirs of the cinema hall owners mentioning the due amount of Rs. 3,73,938/- for the period from 3/92 to 12/01. But till now the complainants have not received any PF amount including gratuity. So they met the PF authority. The recovery officer took steps, but till now the complainants have not received their PF deposited money. As the owners did not issue any slip regarding the PF deposited amount, so the complainants don’t know the actual amount of PF account and they are unable to mention the actual amount of PF and the said statements are lying with the OPs (owners). So having no other alternative, they have filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OPs No. 1 & 3 to 6 have filed a joint written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature and it is barred by law of limitation. It is their specific contention that the Urvashi cinema hall originally belonged to (i) Jugal Kishor Paul (ii) Subrata Kr. Paul and (3) Sasadhar Paul and in their names Govt. of West Bengal issued valid licence in 1989 as proprietors. The cinema hall was running till 2000. The OPs No. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of Sasadhar Paul. The original proprietors Jugal Kishor Paul, Subrata Kr. Paul and Sasadhar Paul expired and all the OPs inherited the property of the cinema hall in ejmali with other co-sharers. At the same time, they submit that after the demise of original proprietors no licence was issued in their favour and since then they don’t run the cinema hall as proprietors. Therefore, there is no employees and employers relationship between the complainants and the present OPs. They are only the legal heirs of the then proprietors of the immoveable property of cinema hall. They have no knowledge regarding the books of accounts of the cinema hall. Being the legal heirs of the then owners they deposited Rs. 3,73,938/- in connection with certificate case No. 01/EPF/SRO/BKP/426 (R-Recovery/WB/27268/SRO/BKP dtd. 19.09.08. So no liability lies upon the OPs in respect of the dues and debts of the opera business of said cinema hall. Even it is not known to them whether the present complainants were at all employees of the said cinema hall. So the complainants have no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against them also.
OP No. 7 has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the cinema hall establishment was covered under PF w.e.f., 01.10.84. He has also stated that the documents regarding payment for the period from 10.84 to 9/91 and 10/91 to 2/92 are not available with his office. So the establishment should submit the documents regarding payments of the above mentioned period for confirmation and regarding payments for the period from 3/92 to 12/01 documents are available with him. The establishment is closed since 2002 and the establishment did not submit any return for those years as a result there is no A/Cs file and A/Cs have not been prepared and also damages also were not levied against the establishment so far. From the annexed documents filed by this OP it is available that he started a certificate case against the legal heirs of the previous owners and in that proceeding the legal heirs appeared and finally made a total payment of Rs. 3,73,938/- for the period from 3/92 to 12/01 as PF dues.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Have the complainants any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Are the complainants entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
Point No.3: Is the case barred by the law of limitation?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written versions filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and considering the oral evidences also it is available on record that the present complainants were the employees of Urvashi Cinema Hall, Mohanpur, Haringhata, Dist. Nadia and the then proprietors of the cinema hall were (i) Jugal Kishor Paul (ii) Subrata Kr. Paul and (3) Sasadhar Paul in whose name licence was issued by the Govt. of West Bengal in 1989 as proprietors. It is also admitted case of both the parties that since 2002 the cinema hall has been closed after the death of the proprietors. On the side of the complainants it is stated that OP No. 1 to 6 are the inheritors of the then proprietors and as such they are liable to pay the due amount and gratuity to them after closure of the cinema hall. No document is filed on the side of the complainants to show that the OPs No. 1 to 6 are the present proprietors of the cinema hall and licence was issued in their names also after demise of the original proprietors who were their predecessors in interest. Ld. lawyer for the OPs submits that as they are not the proprietors of the cinema hall, so the complainants have no cause of action to file the case against them and they are not at all necessary parties in this case also. From the written version, we find that the OPs No. 1 to 6 are admittedly the heirs of Late Jugal Kishor Paul and Late Sasadhar Paul but the heirs of Late Subrata Kr. Paul are not made parties in this case. From one document filed by the OP No. 7 & 8 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, it is available that licence was renewed with regard to Urvashi Cinema Hall for the period from 01.11.01 to 31.10.02 in the names of Jugal Kishor Paul and others. From the cause title of the petition of complaint it is available that OP No. 1 to 4 are the sons of Late Sasadhar Paul and OP No. 5 and 6 are the heirs of Late Subrata Kr. Paul. Complainants have not stated in the petition of complaint that who were actually the owners / proprietors of Urvashi Cinema Hall and their employers also. From another document filed by the OP No. 7 it is available on record that one Alok Kr. Dutta was the proprietor of the cinema hall. So it is not clear to us who were actually the proprietors of the cinema hall. From the written version we find that the property where the cinema hall was situated originally belonged to (i) Jugal Kishor Paul (ii) Subrata Kr. Paul and (3) Sasadhar Paul and as such the present OPs No. 1 to 6 inherited the said property as their heirs along with other co-sharers. Naturally, we hold that there is no employer and employees relationship between the complainants and the present OPs though the present OP 1 to 6 inherited the property of the cinema hall as legal heirs of Sasadhar Paul and Subrata Kr. Paul. We have already discussed that (i) Jugal Kishor Paul (ii) Subrata Kr. Paul and (iii) Sasadhar Paul with the proprietors of the cinema hall. So on this point the case suffers from principle of defect of parties. From the documents filed by the complainants (‘Annexure – d’) it is available that due to nonpayment of Provident Fund amount the OP No. 7 & 8 started proceedings against the OP No. 1 to 6 on 19.08.08 and in those proceedings it was finally decided that Rs. 3,73,938/- was the due amount of PF contribution of the 15 employees of the cinema hall including the present complainants for the period from 3/92 to 12/01. It is also available on record that this amount was deposited by the OPs No. 1 to 6 in due time. The present complainants were the employees of the cinema hall admittedly. To that extent their appointment letters are also filed which support their contention also. But the quantum of PF amount is not mentioned for each of the complainants in the petition of complaint even in the prayer portion also. It is simply prayed for passing an order to pay the decretal amount with interest as per the PF amount to the complainants by the OPs. Another prayer is for passing an order to pay the amount of gratuity by the OPs. So from the petition of complaint, we find that the quantum of PF amount deposited in the credit of the complainants is not mentioned. Nor they have claimed the actual amount of different PF amount for each of the complainants. So on this point the petition of complaint is a defective one. In this connection ld. lawyer for the OPs has cited a ruling from AIR 2008 (NOC) 1996 (NCC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi where the National Commission decided “Consumer Protection Act, (68/96) Section 6 – Jurisdiction to consumer Forum – Consumer Forum cannot go and into question of quantum dispute as it entails duly investigation – Quantum dispute cannot be dealt in summary proceedings under Act.”
On a careful perusal of this above cited ruling, we hold that it is applicable in this case also as in this case the complainants have not stated in the petition of complaint regarding their respective due quantum of PF amount which they claimed from the OPs. On this point the petition of complaint is a defective and the prayers are vague also. Regarding demand of gratuity no amount is mentioned, nor any document is filed to establish that actually the complainants are entitled to have the gratuity amount as the cinema hall was closed sine die.
Ld. lawyer for the OPs submit that the case is barred by limitation also. It is his submission that admittedly the cinema hall was closed since 2002, but the present complainants have filed this case in 2010 i.e., after lapse of 8 years. From the order-sheet of the case it is available on record that the case was filed on 17.08.10. There is no separate application along with this petition of complaint explaining the cause of delay in filing this case. Even in the petition of complaint there is no whisper about the date of cause of action to file this case.
At ‘Para 10’ it is stated that the complainants went to the PF authority and they also detected specific owners of the Urvashi Cinema Hall for payment of the PF deposited amount and gratuity, but no date is mentioned in the petition of complaint. As per provision of sections 24A CP Act “The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.” Section 24A (2) provides that “A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.” But in the petition of complaint there is no whisper regarding long 8 years’ delay for filing this case by the complainants. So considering all these, we hold that the case is barred by limitation also.
As the complainants have not become able to prove their case, so they are not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/88 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
