Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/25

Surjit singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hawks International - Opp.Party(s)

Yogitaa Mohli Adv.

12 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 25 dated 07.01.2019.                                                Date of decision: 12.10.2022.

Surjit Singh aged 58 years s/o. S. Piara Singh, r/o. VPO: Jassowal Sudan, Distt. Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant 

1. M/s. Hawks International Security Services Pvt. Ltd., 21-D, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana-141001, through its Vice President.
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labor, Govt. of India, Regional Office: Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Sham Nagar, near General Bus Stand, Ludhiana, email:

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Ms. Yogita Mohil, Advocate.  

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Ajay Goyal, Advocate.

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that OP1 had employed the complainant as security guard in June 2011. At the time of his appointment as security guard, OP1 had offered monthly salary of Rs.5,500/- payable in cash. The complainant was told that a sum of Rs.500/- per month will be deducted from his salary and the same will be deposited in provident fund account of the complainant. However, provident fund account was opened only in the year 2013 for the reason best known to OP1. The complainant served OP1 honestly and diligently and his salary was subsequently increased to Rs.8,500/- per month and the deduction of provident fund also increased proportionately.  However, OP1 has played fraud with the complainant as it was bound to deposit Rs.500/- per month from the date of joining i.e. June 2011 but it started depositing from 2013 only. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant moved an application under R.T.I. Act in April 2018 to give compete details of his salary, benefits & provident fund accumulations but no reply to the said application has been received till date. The complainant got served notice dated 06.09.2018 but to no avail. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be held negligent and deficient in services towards the complainant and be made to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for flouting the norms, terms and guidelines under the Employees Provident Fund Act under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.     

2.                Upon notice, OP1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by OP2. In the written statement filed by OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that EPF account of the complainant is PN/19866/2666. The date of joining as member is 01.09.2013. The contribution was received in the office of OP2 from September 2013 to February 2017. The amount deposited with OP2 has been duly entered in the account of the complainant. EPF and EPS amounting to Rs.12,355/- and Rs.5,472/-  has already been credited to the account of the complainant maintained with State Bank of India, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana. Thus, there is  no deficiency of service on the part of OP2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit ex. CW1/A along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP2 tendered affidavit ex. RW1/A of Sh. Nitesh Kumar, Senior Social Security Assistant of OP2 along with documents Ex.R1 to ex. R3 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

7.                 By way of this complaint, the complainant has claimed that he joined the services with OP1 in the year 2011 but OP1 started depositing provident fund in his account only in the year 2013. It has also been claimed that OP1 committed fraud with the complainant as it was duty bound to deposit Rs.500/- per month in the provident fund account of the complainant from the date of joining i.e. June 2011. However, to prove that the complainant joined the services with OP1 in the year 2011, the complainant has not placed on record any documentary proof such as his appointment letter. The complainant has not even placed on record his bank statement which could prove that OP1 started paying salary to him in the year 2011. In the absence of any proof of appointment of the complainant with OP1 w.e.f. June 2011, it cannot be said that OP1 was bound to deposit the EPF contribution from June 2011 onwards. Even otherwise, the complainant has claimed in the complaint that OP1 committed fraud but again to prove the element of fraud, no concrete evidence has been brought on record. Even otherwise, the allegations of fraud are required to be proved by way of leading evidence in detail which is not possible before this Commission where cases are decided by resorting to summary procedure only.

8.                As regards of OP2, no case of deficiency of service is made out as the entire amount deposited by OP1 the employer of the complainant on account of EPF and EPS contribution has already been released to the complainant. Thus, it cannot be said to be any case of deficiency of service on the part of OP2.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complainant is, however, at liberty to proceed against OP1 in appropriate civil or criminal court of law as the case may be. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Surjit Singh Vs M/s. Hawks International Security                             CC/19/25

Present:       Ms. Yogita Mohil, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP1 exparte.

                   Sh. Ajay Goyal, Advocate for OP2.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complainant is, however, at liberty to proceed against OP1 in appropriate civil or criminal court of law as the case may be. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.