SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-

                        Deficiency in service in respect of non-payment of pension and other related benefits are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.

2.                     Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant was working in a post of driver under OP No.1-Hukumchand Jute Mill, Barackpore,West Bengal from the year dtd.31.12.1970 and took retirement in the year 1992 after attaining the age of 58 years. It is alleged that, after retirement from the service the officers of the OP-Company assured to sent the pension and other amounts to the Bank account of the complainant, though complainant intimated the Bank Account Number. The Manager did not release the pension in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, complainant issued 2 nos. of Advocate’s Notice on dtd.29.03.2017 and dtd.26.06.2017 through Regd. Post with AD, but same was not responded, hence the present complaint before the Forum seeking direction to OP for release of pension and gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs.        

3.                     Notice was served to OP No.1,Manager, Hukumchand Mills, Barackpore, West Bengal, but OP No.1 did not prefer to appear into the dispute, accordingly set ex-parte by order of this forum dtd.23.03.2018.

                       OP No.2, Employees Provident Fund Organization appeared through their authorized officer and filed written version on dtd.14.11.2017 and additional version on dtd.20.01.2018. The written version dtd. 14.11.2017 reveals that, complainant has not disclosed the Provident Fund Account number for which it is difficult to check the status of the EPF & MP Act,1952. It is averred that an Enforcement Officer was visited to the office of M/s. Hoogly Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.( a Unit of OP No.1) on dtd.27.10.2017 and the officers expressed their inability to provide the service particulars of the complainant. The letter of the Enforcement Officer and letter of the employer dtd. 27.10.2017 are filed into the dispute as Annexure A & B and further a letter has been issued to complainant on dtd.03.11.2017 to furnish the particulars of his service for redressal of grievances. The additional written version filed on dtd.20.01.2018 reveals that, the date of joining to the fund of the complainant is dtd.05.02.1972 and the date of resignation from his service is on dtd.06.01.1993. As complainant was a member of EPF Scheme-1971 the financial benefits as per the Rule already granted to him on dtd.15.02.1996. It is further averred that, complainant is not entitle to enjoy the provisions under EPF-1995 as he was a living member of EPF Scheme-1971 and the EPS was come into force on dtd.16.01.1995 after retirement of the complainant-employee and complainant is only entitled to withdraw benefit U/P 32 of FPF-1971. It is prayed that, in the circumstances OP No.2 has not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint may be dropped.

 4.             Heard the authorized officer of Op No.2 and case of the complainant on merit and ex-parte hearing against OP No.1, perused the documents filed into the dispute. The admitted facts reveals from the complainant, written version and submissions of parties that complainant was serving under OP No.1 M/S. Hukumchand Mills Pvt. Ltd.( at present a unit of M/s. Hoogly Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.) and left the service in the year 1992. On allegation of non-payment of family pension, it is the case of the complainant that inspite of assurance of payament of pension and opening of account, the Ops are not releasing the pension and committed deficiency in service. On the otherhand contesting OP-Employees Provident Fund Organization countering the claim states that as the complainant join to the Fund on dtd.05.02.1972 and resigned from his service on dtd.06.01.1993, complainant is only entitled to withdrawal benefits U/P 32 of FPF-1971. The complainant has received all the withdrawal benefits on dtd.15.02.1996 under FPF Scheme 1971. On the dispute complainant has not furnished any service particulars of provident Fund deductions, and under which scheme/rules of provident Fund Act, he is entitled to claim his grievances. In absence of such service particulars and incomplete of complaint, no grievance of the complainant can be redressed without documents/informations and Ops cannot be liable for any allegations of deficiency in service. Complainant after closure of hearing on dtd.24.12.2018 filed a petition for amendment of the complaint, certain documents are filed even on today i.e. date fixed for pronouncement of order. The petitions filed by complainant are not considered as the same is filed at belated stage of the proceeding. As the OP No.2, in their written version states that complainant has received all his retirement benefits on dtd. 15.02.1996 and same is not countered by the complainant any, we are of the opinion that the complaint has no merit and Ops cannot be liable for committing any deficiency in service. However, liberty is given to complainant to take further legal recourses for redressal of his grievance, if he likes to do so.                          

        With the above observations, we disposed of the complaint without any cost.

               Pronounced in the open Court, this the 8th day of January,2019.

                                I, agree.

                                    Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                               MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT