DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sanjeev Jain s/o Shri Satish Kumar Jain resident of House No.2028, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Hi-Tech Customer Services, through its Proprietor/Partner, Plot No.25/3, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, presently known as Videocon Care Centre, SCO No.80-82, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh

2.                 The Regional EPF Commissioner, The Regional EPF Office, Nashik (Mahrashtra).

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Devinder Kumar, Adv. proxy for Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Adv. for the complainant

                        OPs exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Sanjeev Jain has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

(i)                to direct opposite party No.2 to settle the EPF account of the complainant

(ii)             to direct each of the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1.0 lacs each to the complainant

(iii)           to pay litigation costs of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he joined the services of opposite party No.1 on 25.1.1998.  He became member of the Employees Provident Fund and was allotted account No.MH/50741/503.

                   According to the complainant, every month provident fund was deducted from his salary by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 after adding its share in the said deduction was depositing the same with opposite party No.2.

                   On 23.3.2004 the services of the complainant were terminated.  He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court at Chandigarh and vide award dated 16.2.2010 opposite party No.1 was directed to reinstate the complainant and to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of back wages.  It has been averred that opposite party No.1 did not comply with the said order and execution proceedings before the Labour Court are pending in this regard.

                    It has further been pleaded by the complainant that, in the meantime, the complainant preferred to withdraw EPF contributions and moved an application in Form No.19 for the same. The said application was sent through registered post vide letter dated 19.8.2011.  According to the complainant, despite several requests, the opposite parties failed to settle the account, which amounts to deficiency in service. 

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.  

3.                           Notice sent for the service of opposite party No.1 was received back with the report of refusal.  None appeared on its behalf on the date fixed.  Accordingly, it was proceeded against exparte.

4.                           Similarly, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 on the date fixed.  Accordingly, it was also proceeded against exparte. 

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           From the application (C-2) read with Form No.23, placed on record by the complainant, it is evident that account No.MH/50741/503 was allotted to the complainant and he was a member of the Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.  From Annexure C-1 it is apparent that the services of the complainant were terminated and an order dated 16.2.2010 was passed in his favour by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh directing opposite party No.1 to reinstate him.  However, according to the complainant, the said order has not been complied with so far.

7.                           The case of the complainant is that as he needed money, so he decided to withdraw money from his EPF account and moved an application (Annexure C-2) to this effect.  However, despite several reminders, the opposite parties failed to settle the account.

8.                           To our mind, failure on the part of opposite parties to settle the account, despite the fact that an application to this effect was moved by the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service. 

9.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

(i)                to immediately settle the account of the complainant.

(ii)             to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

(iii)           Pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii)  shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

11.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18.09.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg