DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
RBT/Consumer Complaint No.266 of 2018
Date of institution: 26.04.2018
Date of Decision:17.05.2022
Bhubneshwar Thakur son of Ram Sewak Thakur, resident of House No.B-34/890, Civil Lines, Chander Nagar, Ludhiana
….Complainant
Versus
- Employee’s Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishayanidhi Bhawan, Sham Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
- Kamla Lohtia Sanatan Dharam College, Subhash Nagar, Daresi Road, Ludhiana- 141008, through its principal.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President.
Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member
Present: Sh.Mohit Vashishat, Advocate, for complainant
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for OP1
Sh. RK Bhandari, Advocate, for OP2
Order dictated by Sh. Ranjit Singh, President,
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant was worked as Care Taker/Peon since April 2007 with the OP2 and his las drawn salary was Rs.8000/- per month plus other benefits as per the rules. The complainant was a member of employee’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 as well as Employee Family Pension Scheme and was holding account No.16598/10167 (LDLDH001659800010167) which was allotted to him when he was working with the OP2. The complainant was to withdraw his Provident Fund amount but the OP No.2 refused to complete the formalities for withdrawal of his provident fund amount. Lateron, the complainant came to know that OP2 has not deposited the full contribution amount in respect of his Provident Fund Account and due to this reason they refused to complete the formalities for the release of his provident fund amount. Due to non deposit of the amount by the OP2, the complainant has suffered a loss of employee and employer share of provident fund contribution. It is further alleged that the complainant also contacted the OPs regarding to look into the matter and to direct the OP2 to deposit the amount of the contribution deducted by them from his salary while he was working with them which is a clear cut violation of Provident Fund Rules and till today, the complainant has not received any response from the OPs. As per the Provident Fund Act, 1952, it is responsibility of the organization to maintain the proper record of the employees provident fund members and recover the contributions from the employer for which, it was specially enacted for the welfare of the employees, who are working in the private/organization/establishments and the administrative charges have duly been recovered from the employees through the employers. As such, there is clear cut deficiency in service and negligency on the part of the OPs. Due to their negligency, the complainant is deprived from the amount deducted from his salary for the period from April 2007 to 2012. Since then, the complainant is running from pillar to post for the Provident Fund amount as well as Family pension amount which was deducted from his salary during the course of his employment with OP2. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- To direct the OPs to deposit the amount of employees provident fund contribution amount as well as employee family pension amount in the account of the complainant w.e.f. April 2007 to 2012 along with interest applicable under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme.
- To pay compensation an amount of Rs.40,000/- on account of mental suffering, harassment.
- Any other relief as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit may also be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.
- In reply, the OP No.1 has taken various objections; that the complainant is not maintainable; that the present complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties; no relief is claimed against the answering OP nor there is any deficiency on the part of the answering OP. On merits, it is stated that the complainant was registered with the answering OP vide EPF account No.16598/10167 w.e.f 0107.2010 to 31.5.2012 and the complainant is at liberty to get the collect fund deposited in this account by filing form No.19 and 10-C, RPFC/LDH, but has failed to do this formality, due to this reason, his funds were not released by the answering OP. The complainant has not supplied any documents with regard to his service in the year 2007 with the OP No.2. Rest of allegations levelled by the complainant against the answering OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal the same with cost.
- In reply, the OP No.2 has taken preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of the necessary parties; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP; that the complainant is guilty of concealing the material facts infact the complainant has not provided the details of his bank account, PAN Card number and Adhar card Number beside cancelled cheque to facilitate the release of the provident fund amount and to fill the requisite form No.19 and 10-C. On merits, it is stated that the complainant is not entitled to pension benefits as he to his own admission had served the OP2 only for five years and that too intermittently so as he neither served the institution for ten continuous years to become eligible for pensionary benefits nor is entitled to full pension benefits as he neither served the institution for 22 continuous years nor attained the age of 58 years. The present complaint is false and frivolous. It is denied that the complainant worked since April 2007 or that his last drawn salary was Rs.8000/- per month plus other benefits as per rules. In fact, the complainant worked with the OP2 w.e.f. 01.07.2010 to 31.5.2012 and was holding EPF/EPS account No.16598/10167. It is also denied that OP2 refused to complete the formalities for withdrawal of his provident fund amount. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the OP2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.
- In support of his evidence, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered certain documents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs have also tendered various documents in the shape of evidence.
Even, the learned counsel for the OP2 has suffered a statement to the effect that the complainant was worked with the OP2 for the period from 1.7.2010 to 31.5.2012 and EPF Account No.PN/16598/10167 has been allotted to the complainant and his EPF contribution is lying in his above said account and complainant can withdraw his EPF contribution and OP2 has no objection about it.
- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully and minutely.
- In support of his claim the learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record Ex.C4 i.e. letter dated 21.11.2017 written by the Employment Provident Fund Organization to the complainant, Ex.C5 is the legal notice, Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 are the postal receipts.
- From the perusal of the documents annexed by the complainant, it reveals that the complainant was enrolled as EPF Member w.e.f. 1.7.2010 to 31.5.2012 vide account No.16598/10167. The complainant has failed to placed on record any documentary proof, which shows the date of joining of the complainant is 01.07.2007. Even, the learned counsel for the OP2 has given no objection regarding withdrawal of the provident fund amount by the complainant. So, in these circumstances, we dispose of the present case with the direction to the complainant to complete all the formalities required by the OP1 for withdrawing the amount lying in his EPF Account. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to make best efforts at their end for making the full amount lying in his EPF Account. The complainant is at liberty if the complainant has any documentary proof that he has been working with the OP2 since 2007, he can take his claim by showing the document with the OP1. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
Announced
May 17, 2022
(Ranvir Kaur) (Ranjit Singh)
Member President
CC No.266 of 2018
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Adv. For OP1
Sh. RK Bhandari, Adv. For OP2
Arguments completed. Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands disposed of. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
May, 17 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
