| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.462/2012 DATED ON THIS THE 30th September 2015 Present: 1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT 2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi B.Sc., LLB., - MEMBER 3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C. B.E., LLB., - MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S | : | Harsha.M.R., S/o H.S.Rajendra Prakash, No.1064, G and H Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-560023. (Sri P.D.Rajashekar, Adv.) | | | | V/S | OPPOSITE PARTY/S | : | - IFB Industries Limited, C/o Arnav Market, No.12, Udaya Ravi Road, IFB Industries Limited, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.
- IFB Industries Limited, Regd. Office: No.14, Taratala Road, Kolkata 700088, Rep. by its Managing Director.
- IFB Industries Limited, Branch Office: :No.16-17, Vishweshwaraiah Industrial Estate, Opp. White Field Road, Besides Graphite India, Bangalore-46. Rep. by its Branch Manager.
(Sri H.R.Ramesh, Adv.) - Addl. Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of the Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Block Sector-2, Saale Lake City, Karunamayi, Calcutta-700091.
- Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of the Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavihsya Nidhi Bhavan, No.13, Rajaram Mohan Roy Road, Bangalore-560025.
- Regional Provident Fund Officer, Regional Provident Fund Office, Gayathripuram, Mysore.
(Sri A.V.Jayarama Rao, Adv.) |
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service | Date of filing of complaint | : | 19.10.2012 | Date of Issue notice | : | 22.10.2012 | Date of order | : | 30.10.2015 | Duration of Proceeding | : | 3 YEARS 11 DAYS |
Sri Devakumar.M.C. Member - The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to relieve from the job and to pay provident fund amount, gratuity, balance salary amount with accrued benefits during his service and damages for the loss and hardship caused due to negligence and deficiency in service along with cost of the proceedings with other reliefs.
- The complainant was employed with opposite party Nos.1 and 3 company as Area Sales Executive duly accepting the terms enumerated in the letter of appointment. The opposite party served for a term of one year and fifteen days. The complainant alleges the harassment from his colleagues and senior officers. The complainant alleges that the opposite party company was depositing the salary amount of other employees into his account without furnishing the details of such payments, because of which the complainant had problems with income tax department. Further, unable to sustain the harassment, the complainant decided to resign the job and charge was handed over to the concerned officer. Though the opposite party company was contributing to the E.P.F. on behalf of the complainant to P.F. office, the application to claim the P.F. amount was not forwarded to the P.F. Office. The opposite party company has not issued the relieving letter from the job. Hence, alleging the negligence and deficiency in service filed this complaint seeking compensation and other reliefs.
- The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 in its version contended that the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act and denying the allegations as false and submits that the complaint is not maintainable. Further, contended that, as per the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment, any disputes relating to the employment shall be deemed to have arisen in Kolkata and such issue shall be settled in Kolkata. As such contended that the complaint is not maintainable. Further the complainant has not given 90 days notice prior to the date of submission of resignation, and has not handed over the charge as per the requirements of opposite party Nos.1 to 3 company. Further, denying all other allegations as false, prays for dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency in service on its part.
- The opposite party Nos.4 to 6 filed its version and denied allegations as misconceived and submits that the P.F. account of the complainant was maintained with the Regional Provident Fund office at Kolkata, West Bengal. As per the law, the complainant is required to submit an application in Form No.10C or 19, to the employer who inturn after ful-filling the provisions, forward the application to P.F. Office, to claim the P.F. amount. Otherwise, the P.F. office will not disburse the P.F. amount to the claimant. As such, there is no cause of action against it and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint against opposite party Nos. 4 to 6.
- To prove the allegations the complainant has filed affidavit and produced several documents. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 have also filed the affidavit with documents. Written arguments filed by the parties. On perusal of the documents produced, the matter posted for orders.
- The following points arises for our consideration:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether the complainant proves the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled for the reliefs?
- What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- In the negative. Point No.2 :- In the negative. Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: - Point No.1:- The complainant was appointed as Area Sales Executive, subject to the terms and conditions stated in the letter of appointment dated 15.03.2010, to be based at Bangalore and reporting to the Branch Manager at Bangalore. The complainant has served for a period of one year and fifteen days. The complainant alleged that he suffered harassment from the colleagues and senior officials of the opposite party company and the opposite party was depositing the salary amount of other workers into his account, due to this the complainant had problems with IT department for non-submission of the particulars in the Form No.16. The opposite party company was contributing to the E.P.F. to the provident fund office on behalf of the complainant. The other benefits such as HRA, Bonus, Exaggeration, Conveyance allowances etc., have not been paid as per the letter of appointment. Further, the opposite party company was not forwarding the P.F. amount claim format to the P.F. office to enable the complainant to claim P.F. amount. The complainant alleged that the opposite party company owes a sum of `2,00,000/- towards P.F. amount and other accrued benefits. Further alleged that the complainant could not sustain the harassment resigned the job by handing over the charge to the concerned officers. The complainant could not get employment as he was not official relieved from the opposite party company. Due to this, the complainant suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment. As such, alleging the deficiency in service, filed this complaint seeking the reliefs.
- The opposite party company admitted the appointment of the complainant as its area sale executive and served the company for a period of one year and fifteen days. The allegation of harassment by colleagues and senior officials, deposit of salary of other employees into the complainant’s account and non-furnishing the details of such deposits are all denied as false. The opposite party company admitted the deposit of contribution towards E.P.F on behalf of the complainant and denied allegation of not forwarding the application to P.F. office to claim his P.F. amount. The opposite party submitted that in absence of the application in the prescribed form by the complainant, it cannot certify and forward the same to P.F. office, as per the law. Therefore, denied the allegations as false. The opposite party alleged that the complainant did not followed the directions to handing over the charge as per the letter of appointment. The complainant was required to handover the charge to Mr.Paul Vijay and has to collect the balance certificate from all those dealers with whom the complainant was dealing and shall submit the same to the company before seeking relieving order. Further, a 90 days notice is required to be served on opposite party company or to pay 3 months salary before resigning from the job. Due to non-compliance of the above, the complainant not entitled to seek relieving order from the opposite party company. As such, the opposite party company contended that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on its part and hence the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.
- The complainant was authorized to engage the manpower to meet the company target and the expenditure incurred by the complainant was deposited into the account of the complainant, not otherwise.
- The opposite party company contended that, as per the letter of appointment, any cause of action relating to the employment shall be deemed to have been arisen at Kolkata and the same shall be settled only in Kolkata. Hence, the Forum does not have the jurisdiction, as such, the complaint is not maintainable. Further, the relationship between complainant and the opposite party company is that of employee and employer, as such, the remedy has to be sought before the appropriate Forum. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prays for dismissal of the complaint is not maintainable.
- The opposite party Nos.4 to 6 contended that the grievances is relating to the employment, salary and other benefits. These opposite parties are concerned only with regards to the payment of benefits under the Provident Fund Act. Further, the complainant’s P.F. account was maintained at Regional Office at Kolkata, West Bengal. As per the law, the complainant has to submit an application in the prescribed Form No.10C or 19, to claim P.F. amount, through his employer. In the case on hand, the complainant did not follow the procedure, hence the complainant is not entitled to receive P.F. amount at this stage. Therefore, the opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 contended that there is no cause of action against it and they are not liable to pay any reliefs. As such, the complaint against opposite party No.4 to 6 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
- In view of the conditions laid down in the letter of appointment, it is clear that the cause of action relating to employment shall be deemed to have been arises at Kolkata and the same has to be settled in Kolkata only. Further, since the dispute is relating to the employment, the remedy has to be sought before the appropriate Forum and not before the Consumer Forum. The complainant is not a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. As such, the complaint is not maintainable. Further, due to non-compliance of the procedure stated in the letter of appointment, the complainant is not entitled get relieved from the job. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 company.
- The complainant should submit an application form through its employer, in order to claim the P.F. amount. In absence of the same opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 are not liable to pay the P.F. claim amount. Hence, the complaint against opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 is liable to dismissed. Further, the pleadings never discloses the place of working properly.
- In view of the above observations, the complaint is liable to dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
- Point No.2:- Due to non compliance of the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment, the complainant is not entitled for any of reliefs from opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 company. Further, in absence of the claim in the prescribed format through proper procedure, the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from opposite party Nos.4 to 6. As such, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the Negative.
- Point No.3:- In view of the above findings, we hereby pass the following order:-
:: O R D E R :: - The complaint is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
- The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
| |
