-x-

For Complainant          :             Sri Rajesh Kumar Tripathy, Advocate.

For OP No.1 & 4            :             Sri M. Kurma Rao, Advocate.

For OP No.2                    :             Sri K. N. Samantaray, Advocate & Associates.

For OP No.3                    :             Sri R. P. Padhi, Advocate & associates.

                                                                                      -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainants is that one Sadan Pujari, S/o. Tanka Pujari was working under OP.1 as Helper who expired on 01.05.1986.  His two wives namely Kesari Pujari and Jamuna Pujari died on 09.7.1988 and 25.09.2009 respectively.  Now the daughters of late Sadan Pujari i.e. Petitioner No.1 & 2 have filed this case for getting the EPF dues of their father.  It is their case that OP.2 has transferred the employees share of Rs.57, 406/- & employers share of Rs.89, 832/- of late Sadan Pujari to OP.3 on 25.2.2003 and subsequently the OP.3 has transferred employees share amount to OP.4 against EPF account No.578/200 of late Sadan Pujari but not the employer’s share of Rs.89, 832/-.Hence they prayed to the Forum to direct OP.3 to transfer the said amount to OP.4 besides other directions.

2.                         The Ops 1 & 4 filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted that late Sadan Pujari was working as Helper under OP.1 and the APFC, Berhampur has transferred both the shares of deceased employee to OP.4 and the OP.4 has released the employees share in favour of the complainants on 12.4.2017.  It is contended that the complainants have applied for the employers share on 23.9.2016 and the same has been transferred by OP.3 on 08.3.2017 and as the claim is beyond a period of 30 years, verification of record to settle the claim is required.  It is also further contended that the OP.4 is pursuing the matter with OP.3 for release of share in favour of the complainants.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                         The OP.2 filed counter contending that employee’s share of Rs.57, 406/- and employer’s share of Rs.89, 832/- in respect of Sri S. Pujari PF A/c. No. OR/578/200 has been transferred to OSEB EPF Trust, Gridco, Bhubaneswar along with others vide cheque No.463072 dt.25.02.2003.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                         The OP No.3 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the OP.2 has already transferred both the shares of S. Pujari to OP.3 and the OP.3 has released the employee’s share to OP.4.  The complainants are entitled to get employer’s share of Rs.89, 832/- but the Ops 1 & 2 are to assure and affirm that S. Pujari in whose name the PF account is maintained is none other than Sadan Pujari and he is entitled to get the employer’s share paid to him.  It is further contended that the OP.4 by his letter dt.28.1.2017 requested the OP.3 for transfer of employer’s share amount of S. Pujari but since the letter dt. 04.2.2016 of Southco reveals that A/c. No. OR/578/200 belongs to one Somanath Pujari, the OP.3 has requested the Southco to clarify the names indicated against one PF Account and to furnish service records etc. and hence the OP.3 is unable to release the PF dues to anybody including the complainants.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP.3 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.

5.                         Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

6.                         In this case it is an admitted fact that late Sadan Pujari, the father of the complainants was working as Helper under OP.1 who died on 01.5.1986 and EPF deductions were effected from the salary by OP.1.  From the materials available on record it was revealed that a sum of Rs.57, 406/- towards employee’s share and Rs.89, 832/- towards employer’s share was deposited or accrued with OP No.2 and the said amount has been transferred by OP.2 to OP.3 on 25.2.2003.  It is also revealed that employee’s share has been released in favour of the complainants by OP.1 after getting it from OP No.3 but the employer’s share of Rs.89, 832/- is still with OP.3 due to the complainants.

7.                         The A/R for the OP.3 submitted that one S. Pujari A/c. No.578/200 was an employee of OP.1 and OP.2 has transferred the amount on 25.2.2003 in the name of S. Pujari to OP.3 but Ops 1 & 2 have not identified S. Pujari as none other than Sadan Pujari who expired on 01.5.1986.  The A/R for OP.3 argued that the PIO, Corporate Office, Southco, Berhampur by his letter dt.04.2.2016 informed to the Advocate of the complainants that A/c. no. OR/578/200 belongs to one Somanath Pujari and hence OP.3 could not considered the request dt.28.1.2017 of OP.4 to release the employer’s share.  The OP.3 is in doubt as to who actually is S. Pujari as it reveled in 2 different names i.e. Somanath and Sadan.  As the Ops 1, 2 and 4 have never clarified that the A/c. No.OR/578/200 relates to Sadan Pujari, the amount is lying with OP.3 till date.

8.                         From the above submissions it was ascertained that A/C. No. OR/578/200 belongs to S. Pujari and 2 names are forthcoming as S. Pujari i.e. Somanath and Sadan.  The OP No.1 being the employer of Sadan, he is to identify the person who relates to A/c. No.578/200 but it is not OP.3.  Hence there is absolutely no problem if OP.3 releases the employer’s share on the request of OP No.1.  It is also a fact that the OP.3 cannot disburse the share to the incumbents directly and it is not his duty.  It is seen that the OP.1 has already requested to release the amount but OP.3 seeks clarification.  The amount is to be transferred to OP.4 by OP.3 for disbursement.  The OP.3 is to be directed to release employer’s share to OP.4 who is to disburse the amount along with OP.1 on proper scrutiny of service documents in respect of Sadan Pujari.  As the matter is of 30 years back, necessary scrutiny is required for release of employer’s share in favour of the complainants.  In the above circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of any of the Ops.

9.                         Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to release the employer’s share amount of Rs.89, 832/- or so in favour of OP No.4 forthwith and the Ops 1 & 4 are directed to release the amount through proper scrutiny of service documents of Sadan Pujari.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)