Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

481/2008

P.Venugopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. R.R.Donnelley India Outsource Private Ltd.,Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

P.Deenadayalan

02 May 2018

ORDER

                                                              Date of Filing  : 25.11.2008

                                                               Date of Order : 02.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.481 /2008

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 02^ND DAY OF MAY 2018

Mr. P. Venugopal,

S/o. Mr. A. Parthasarathy,

No.18A, M.C.M. Garden 3^rd Street,

Old Washermenpet,

Chennai - 600 021.                                                .. Complainant.                                           

 

                                                                                                ..Versus..

1. M/s. R.R. Donnelley India Outsource Private Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

Mr. Kiran Shankar,

No.43A, 1^st Main Road,

R.A. Puram,

Chennai – 600 028.

 

2.  The Commissioner,

Regional Provident Fund of

Tamil Nadu & Puducherry,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                       ..  Opposite parties.

      

Counsel for complainant            :  M/s. P. Deenadayalan

Counsel for 1^st Opposite party   :  M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite party  :  M/s. S. Srinivasan & another

ORDER

 

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

        This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to give direction to forward the complainant’s Provident fund application which was submitted to the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship and deficiency in service and to pay the cost of Rs.2,000/-.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he was employed under the 1^st opposite party as a Graphic Designer and his employee I.D. is No. 1683 and rendered unblemished service.  Due to misunderstanding, between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party he resigned from the job.  As per the Memorandum of settlement under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dated:22.07.2008 the complainant is entitled all benefits including Provident Fund.  On 22.07.2008, the complainant applied to his Provident Fund benefits and he was expected to have the benefit within one month and was waiting for due sanction even after a lapse of one month.  While approaching the Provident Fund office, the complainant was informed that no application received from the 1^st opposite party.    Evenafter repeated requests and demands, there was no response from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant further states that he comes under the term Consumer since he is a beneficiary under the opposite party and the opposite party committed deficiency in service and caused more mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant was filed. 

  2.    The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  It is admitted by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant was an employee of their company.  The complainant joined service on 12.01.2004 under OfficeTiger database system as a Graphic Designer which has been merged with Astron Document Management Private Limited (Astron) thereby, all the account details shall be transferred and forwarded to the new company Astron Document Management Private Limited (Astron) which caused some delay.  Muchless, the complainant was sent out from service for his own mismanagement after due consideration.  The 1^st opposite party submits that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint as per Section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which defines “Service”.  The service rendered by the complainant as Graphic Designer is not coming under the purview of the definition of “Service”.  The service of the complainant is coming under the contract of “Personal Service”.  Hence the 1^st opposite party become liable statutorily under Employees’ Provident fund and Miscellaneous  Provisions Act to deduct contributions from the employee.  The 1^st opposite party acted as an agent to the Employees’ Provident  fund organisation rendering personal service.  The 1^st opposite party is not responsible for submission of claim of the employees to the Employees’ Provident fund organisation.  The Employees’ Provident fund organisation is statutorily liable and responsible to take suitable action for disbursement of the amount.   In this case, the Provident Fund account number of the complainant in OfficeTiger DataBase Systems (India) Private Limited is amalgamated with Astron Document Management Private Limited (Astron) thereby, the action initiated by the Provident Fund Organisation has been delayed.  All the employees of the opposite party were included in the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation in accordance with their eligibility.  The 1^st opposite party forwarded the claims to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for settlement on 30.06.2008, it was returned for the reason that the accumulations had not yet been transferred to their respective previous account.  On 03.07.2008, the 1^st opposite party sent a consolidated sheet for the transfer of Provident Fund account.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

  3.    The brief averments in the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings.  The 1^st opposite party forwarded the Provident fund application submitted by the complainant on 22.07.2008 to the 2^nd opposite party.  Further the 2^nd opposite party states that without the precise Provident Fund Account Number, the 2^nd opposite party cannot furnish nor extract any details of the Provident Fund Account as the Enrolled Members are in mammoth volume.  The 2^nd opposite party therefore states that the details regarding the Provident fund Account Number is essential for furnishing any particulars or processing any papers.  There are no merits in the complaint and the same has to be dismissed with costs. 

4.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  The Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 are filed and marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  The Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

5.     The points for consideration before the Forum is:-

1.Whether the complainant  entitled  the relief of direction to forward his Provident Fund application to the opposite party as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and hardship with cost of Rs.2,000/- as prayed for?

6.     On point:

The complainant has not filed any written arguments.  A formal written arguments has been filed by the 2^nd opposite party.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  The complainant has not turned up to advance any oral argument also.  Perused the records namely complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc. The complainant pleaded and contended that he was employed under the 1^st opposite party as a Graphic Designer.   Due to misunderstanding, between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party he resigned from the job.  As per the Memorandum of settlement under section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dated:22.07.2008 as per Ex.A4 the complainant is entitled to all benefits including Provident Fund.   On 22.07.2008, the complainant applied to his Provident Fund benefits and he is expected to have the benefit within one month and was waiting for due sanction even after a lapse of one month.  While approaching the Provident Fund office, the complainant was informed that no application received from the 1^st opposite party.    Evenafter repeated requests and demands, there was no response from the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complainant was constrained to file this complaint.   But on a careful perusal of the records, the complainant has not explained the reason for the delay.  It is seen that the employment between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party was regular and the complainant’s name is duly registered in the Employees’ Provident Fund scheme.  The complainant joined service on 12.01.2004 under Tiger database system as a Graphic Designer as per Ex.A1 which has been merged with Astron Document Management Private Limited (Astron) thereby, all the account details shall be transferred and forwarded to the new company Astron Document Management Private Limited (Astron)which caused some delay.  Muchless, the complainant was sent out from service for his own mismanagement after due consideration. 

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint as per Section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which defines “Service”.   The service rendered by the complainant as a Graphic Designer is not coming under the purview of the definition of “Service”. The service of the complainant is coming under the contract of “Personal service”.   Hence the 1^st opposite party become liable statutorily under Employees’ Provident  fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act to deduct contributions from the employee.  The 1^st opposite party acted as an agent to the Employees Provident Fund Organisation rendering personal service.  The 1^st opposite party is not responsible for submission of claim of the employee to the Employees’ Provident fund organisation.  The Employees’ Provident fund organisation is statutorily liable and responsible to take suitable action for disbursement of the amount.   In this case, the Provident Fund account number of the complainant in Office Tiger DataBase Systems (India) Private Limited is amalgamated with Astron Document Management Private Limited (Astron) thereby, the action initiated by the Provident Fund Organisation has been delayed.  All the employees of the 1^st opposite party were included in the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation in accordance with their eligibility.

 8.    The 1^st opposite party forwarded the claims to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2^nd opposite party) for settlement as per Ex.B2 dated:30.06.2008, it was returned for the reason that the accumulations had not yet been transferred to their respective previous account.  On 03.07.2008, the 1^st opposite party sent a consolidated sheet for the transfer of Provident Fund account as per Ex.B3.  Immediately within the reasonable time, the Provident Fund Commissioner processed the account of the complainant and issued a cheque which was duly acknowledged by the complainant as per Ex.B6.  There is no deficiency in service of any kind arise.  The complainant also has not made any objections regarding the disbursement of Provident Fund amount.  It is apparently clear that due to merger of companies and want of clear accumulation, the delay was happened.  Accumulations can be set at right by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation itself who is added as a party without any relief.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service of the opposite parties.   Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd  day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	31.10.2004	Copy of appointment order
Ex.A2	01.02.2008	Copy of last salary slip
Ex.A3	22.07.2008	Copy of relieving order
Ex.A4	22.07.2008	Copy of settlement

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	08.10.2007	Copy of letter from the 1st opposite party to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Ex.B2	30.06.2008	Copy of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization to the 1st opposite party
Ex.B3	03.07.2008	Copy of letter from the 1st opposite party to the Regional Provident Fund commissioner
Ex.B4	04.09.2008	Copy of letter from the Regional Provident fund commissioner to the 1st opposite party
Ex.B5	30.12.2008	Copy of the 1st opposite party to the Regional Provident Fund Commission-II, Chennai
Ex.B6	06.01.2009	Copy of receipt for the payment of PF amounts to the complainant by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

 

2^ND OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT