BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H.Prasad,B.A.,LL.B. President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Monday the 21st day of July, 2008
C.C.No. 126/07
Between:
M.C. Ekambarappa, S/o. M.P. Ekamabarappa,
H.No.5-3-92 Upstairs, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad. … Complainant
Versus
- M/s. The Yemiganur Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society, Represented by its Secretary,
Yemmiganur.
- Employees Provident Fund Organization, Represented by its Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office,
1/30, R.S.Road, Kadapa-516 004.
- Additional Provident Fund Commissioner (South Zone)
Barkatpura, Hyderabad. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.L.Viswanatham, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 and 3 in person and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.126/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.32,439/- as balance of E.P.F. amount with 12% interest, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship, and cost of the case alleging deficiency of the opposite parties in paying E.P.F amount of Rs.97,003/- only under P.F account No.AP/2003/485 out of Rs. 1,27,442/- entitled on retirement, on the pretext of non contribution of employers E.P.F share without initiating any action for recovery of said amount from employer (OP.No.1).
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance and contested the case by filling their written versions.
3. While the opposite party No.1 as per cause-title of the case is M/s The Yemmiganur Weavers Co-operative Society Represented by its Secretary, a written version was filed by one E.Erranna alleging himself as opposite party No.1 without any proof as he is Secretary representing the opposite party No.1or with any valid authorization of opposite party No.1 in his favour. Hence the said written version is remaining as of one who is having any privy to this case. Apart from the above the said written version is not specifically denying the contentions of the complainant except taking please of its request the concerned authorities to hold public auction of society lands and hindrances to said public auction and P.F authorities issuing warrant to District Collector to hold auction sale of society lands to clear of P.F dues.
4. The written version of opposite party No.2 adopted by opposite party No.3 alleges 75% of amount payable to complainant was paid to complainant as opposite party No.1 – employer of complainant – defaulted P.F contributions to the tune of Rs. 54,52,130/- for the period 3/2001 to 9/2005 and a sum of Rs.32,334/- as balance and interest thereon shall be released to the complainant on the remittances by opposite party No.1 of outstanding P.F due and proceedings are initiated for recovery of said outstanding by auction sale of lands of opposite party No.1 but in vain on account of intervention of local leaders and hence any deficiency on its part and so seeks dismissal of the case with cost.
5. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A5 and its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B13 and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 in reiteration of its defence.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is, whether the complainant has made out deficiency of the opposite parties and thereby their liability to the complainant’s claim.
7. The ExA1 is subscribers annual statement of account for the year 2005 -2006 for the account No.AP / 2003 /485 standing in the name of M.C. Ekambarappa, - complainant of this case . It was issued for regional provident fund commissioner , A.P showing the closing balances of Rs.83,699/- and Rs.43,743/- of employee (complainant) and employer’s (opposite party No.1) respectively and a nil non contribution in said current year and thereby envisaging to the credit of said complainant’s account No.AP/2003/485 a total sum of Rs. 1,27,442/- (i.e Rs.83,699 + Rs.43,743/-). As long as the genuineness and bonafidees of this statement in Ex.A1 was not in doubt there appears any merit and force in the contentions of the opposite parties that there are defaults in payments of contributions by the employer of the complainant and so made payment of 75% entitled amount to the complainant.
8. In the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 it is contended that the opposite party No.1 defaulted in payment of its contributions for the period 03/2001 to 9/2005. In the light of Ex.A1 – subscribers annual statement of account for the year 2005 -2006, there appears any reason to believe that the contribution of the employer(opposite party No.1) towards complainant’s P.F account were in default from 3/2001 to 9/2005 to the tune of Rs.54,52,130/- and any relevant connection of the alleged theory of auction of opposite party No.1s land to meet the payment of balance due of complainant’s.
9. The B1 to B13 are the documentary record as to the alleged auction sale of opposite party No.1s land. There being in general to the opposite party No.1s liabilities and being not in specific and in reference to the complainant’s case and his due amount , there appear to be of any relevancy for their appreciation in this case as having any superseding and overriding effect on the EX.A1 which acknowledges the fact of contribution received from employer and employee earlier to 2005-2006 and in the year 2005-2006 that is by the time of retirement of the complainant vide Ex.A3 proceedings and consequent proceedings.
10. The contentions of the complainant as to amount received under P.F account is not only admitted by the opposite party No.2 but also finds a corroboration in Ex.A5 letter dated 18-12-2006 of complainant to opposite party No.2.
11. The Ex.A2 – letter dated 5-2-2007 addressed to complainant bears any relevancy for this case as while it alleges the defaulted sum of employer as Rs.36,59,441/-. The written version of opposite party No.2 & 3 alleges it as Rs.54,52,130/-. The Ex.A1 envisages the actual amount to the credit of complainant’s P.F account in the year of his retirement. There appears any valid and justifiable reason for not disbursing the said amount at least to the complainant on the date of complainant’s entitleness for said accrued P.F amounts consequent to his retirement. Hence there appears every bonafidies in the claim of the complainant for the residuary balance amount of P.F to the credit of his P.F account . As the deficient conduct of the opposite party No.2 in not settling the claim of the complainant in full to the entitled extent as not only ensued mental agony and hardship but also constrained him to this forum for redressal of his grievances , the complainant remains entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as cost at the joint and several liability of the opposite parties 2 and 3 .
12. consequently, in the result of the above discussion the case of the complainant is dismissed against the opposite party No.1 and allowed against the opposite parties 2 and 3 only directing the opposite parties 2 and 3 at their joint and several liability to pay to the complainant the residuary balance of Ex.A1 amount with permissible rate of interest under provident fund Act from the date on which said remained due , Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffered hardship of complainant and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this case within one month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties 2 and 3 shall jointly and severally at liability to pay the supra stated award amount with 9% interest p.a from the date of said default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 21st day of July, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. EPF’s subscription Annual Statement 2005-06 received
by opposite party No.2
Ex.A2. Letter from OP.No.2 to complainant dated 05-02-2007 original.
Ex.A3. Proceeding received by opposite party No.1 dated 14-07-2006.
Ex.A4. Resignation letter dated 07-07-2006.
Ex.A5. Letter of Complainant to OP.No.2 dated 18-12-2006.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Proclamation of sale dated 09-06-2006 .
Ex.B2. Action notice.
Ex.B3. Letter by local MLA dated 17-07-2006.
Ex.B4. Letter dated 17-07-2006 by the employer to opposite party No.2
Ex.B5. Letter dated 18-07-2006 Govt. of Andhra Pradesh from Assistant Director of handlooms and Textiles, Kurnool.
Ex.B6. Proclamation of sale schedule of Property dated 29-11-2006.
Ex.B7. Public Action notice dated 22-12-2006.
Ex.B8. Letter of Satyanarayana Rao to commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles, Hyderabad dated 20-12-2006.
Ex.B9. Proceeding of the Assistant Director, H & T, Kurnool,
Dated 02-02-2007.
Ex.B10. Letter by local MLA.
Ex.B11. Warrant of sale of property dated 21-03-2007.
Ex.B12. Letter dated 18-12-2006 of Assistant Director, Handlooms and Textiles, Kurnool.
Ex.B13. Letter dated 20-12-2006 local MLA to the Commissioner, Hyderabad.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties..
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was posted on :
