Sh. Narasimhan Gangavarm, respondent No.1, was the employee of M/s Semi Conductor Laboratory since 1984.  He was drawing his salary along with other benefits from the petitioner.  Deductions towards the contributory funds were being made by the petitioner till September, 1992 from his basic     salary.  Employees’

-2-

contribution towards Provident Fund was being deposited by the petitioner in his Provident Fund Account No. PN/5790/0375.  Respondent No.1 was commissioned in the Territorial Army which is a part time voluntary citizens’ Army.  As per respondent No.1, the Territorial Army does not provide regular service career to the persons commissioned under them.  He was relieved by the petitioner on 25.9.1992 and he continued in the Territorial Army for a period of 14 years i.e. 1^st May, 2006.  Neither the petitioner nor the Territorial Army deducted the contributory Provident Fund from the pay of Respondent No.1 nor deposited the same with the Provident Fund Commissioner.  On his retirement, respondent No.1 made a claim for payment of Provident Fund, but since neither respondent No.1 nor his employer had deposited the same, the same was not paid to him.  Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          Plea taken by the petitioner in the Written Statement before the District Forum was that the complaint was not maintainable as it did not fall within the jurisdiction of consumer fora.  It was further stated that the respondent No.1 had continued in the Territorial Army without

-3-

issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the petitioner beyond                    31^st December, 2004; that the petitioner had informed the Territorial Army vide letter dated 26.2.1993; that Territorial Army was required to deduct Employees Contribution on account of Provident Fund, Family Pension Fund and Group Insurance under the provisions of Employees’ Provident Fund, 1952 and remit the same to the petitioner, so that the amount could be deposited in the respondent/complainants Account along with its own contribution; that the Territorial Army did not do so and, therefore, neither the contribution of Respondent No.1 or its own share was deposited; that the petitioner was not at fault at all and the complaint be dismissed. 

          Territorial Army was proceeded ex-parte.  In so far as the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Regional Employees Fund Organization, Respondent No.3 and 4 are concerned, they filed the Written Statement, but they were the performa respondents.

          District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence led before it, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to deposit the contribution which was to be made by respondent No.1 as well as its own contribution within two months.

-4-

Rs.25,000/- were awarded as compensation for deficiency in service.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been disposed of by the impugned order.  The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and held that the petitioner cannot be asked to deposit the contribution which was to be made by the respondent No.1.  Rest of the order of District Forum was upheld.

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had deposited its contribution due to the respondent No.1 prior to the passing of the order by the District Forum along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date it became due till date of deposit. 

Limited notice was issued to the respondent as to why the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the fora below be not deleted.

The only point pressed before us is regarding the payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- which has been ordered to be paid by the fora below for deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.  It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had informed the Territorial Army by its letter dated 26.2.1993 to deduct the employee’s contribution towards the Provident Fund, Family

-5-

Pension Fund and Group Insurance and the remaining share shall be added by the employer to the aforesaid amount; since the Territorial Army did not deduct the contribution which was to be made by the respondent No.1 and remit the same to the petitioner, the petitioner was not in a position to deposit the same.  As against this, the petitioner, who is appearing in person, contends that the petitioner at no stage had informed the respondent No.1 regarding the exact amount of his contribution; the same was done, for the first time, only in the year 2007.

Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 in person have been heard. 

From the facts narrated above, we find that the respondent No.1 had been commissioned in the Territorial Army on 25.9.1992 and continued there till 1^st May, 2006.  Inspite of petitioner’s writing various letters to the Territorial Army to deduct the employee’s contribution towards the Provident Fund, Family Pension Fund and Group Insurance, the Territorial Army did not do so.  There was no requirement under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act,

-6-

1952 to inform respondent No.1 about the exact amount of contribution to be made by him.   Respondent No.1 relies upon Section 7 (b) of the Territorial Army Act, 1948 and para 37 of the Territorial Army Act Rules, 1984 which provides that the employer is required to intimate the exact amount of contribution which is required to be made by the employee as per emoluments given by the parent employer.  The Territorial Army Act, 1948 and Territorial Army Act Rules 1984 are applicable to the Territorial Army but not to the petitioner.  Territorial Army also did not illicit this information from the petitioner.  In fact, the Territorial Army did not respond to the letters written by the petitioner.  As per the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 the petitioner was not required to intimate the respondent No.1 regarding the exact contribution to be made by him.  It may be stated here that this information was also not asked for by the respondent No.1.  The petitioner could not be held guilty of service on its part for not depositing its contribution which was to be made by the respondent No.1 as well as its own contribution because the petitioner never received the amount after deduction from the pay of

-7-

respondent No.1 from the Territorial Army.  The Territorial Army did not take any action on the request sent by the petitioner on 26.2.1993 requiring it to deduct the employee’s contribution towards the Provident Fund, Family Pension Fund and Group Insurance.  Deficiency in service, if at all, lay with the Territorial Army and not the petitioner.

          Petitioner has already deposited its own contribution along with interest @ 12% which the respondent No.1 would be entitled to withdraw, if not already withdrawn.

For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is partly accepted.  The direction given by the fora below burdening the petitioner with Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation for deficiency in service is ordered to be deleted. Rest of the order is upheld. 

Litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- before this Commission have already been paid to the respondent.