Date of Filing : 04.07.2022
Date of Disposal : 29.04.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:29.04.2024
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No.1300/2022
The Commissioner
Office of Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan
No.109-208, 2nd Stage
Gayathripuram
Mysore - 570 019 Appellant
(By Mrs M R Shalamala, Advocate)
- Versus -
1. Sri N Chamaiah
S/o Sri Nanjaiah
Retired
R/at Near Jai Bharath School
Tavaragere, Mandya City
Mandya District - 571 403
2. The Official Liquidator
Govt. of India
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Corporate Bhavan
High Court of Karnataka
No.26-27, 12th Floor
Raheja Towers, M G Road
Bengaluru - 560 001
3. Mr T Niranjanagowda
(Angarahalli Thammegowda)
S/o Mr Sivalingegowda
(Former Employee in
M/s Mysore Acetate & Chemicals
Co. Ltd.,Mandya)
Residing in Keelara Village,
Keregodu Hobli
Mandya Taluk & District)
4. The Chief Accounts Officer
Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation
Central Office
Bangalore Respondents
: ORDER :
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the OP1, aggrieved by the Order dated 30.03.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.22/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission).
2. Heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels for Appellant, Respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and documents produced by OP1/Appellant and Complainant/Respondent No.1 on record. Though Respondent No.2 undertakes to file written arguments, but not filed any written arguments. None appeared for Respondent No.3 and 4, hence, their arguments is taken as heard.
3. The District Commission after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OPs 1 and 2 jointly and severally directed to pay total amount of Rs.93,751/- to the Complainant towards Provident Fund amount along with interest at 12% p.a from the date of Complaint till realisation of the said amount and Rs.15,000/- Compensation for deficiency in service, Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for cost of the proceedings, within six weeks from the receipt of copy of the Order. In case of non-compliance of the Order, the entire amounts shall carry interest at 10% p.a, till its realisation.
4. Aggrieved by this Order, OP1/Employees Provident Fund Organisation is in Appeal, contending among other grounds, that PF amounts claimed by the Complainant is lying with other OPs, hence, Appellant/OP1 is not liable to pay the contribution amount and District Forum erroneously held that the Appellant is liable. Thus, Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.
5. The allegation of the Complainant is that after dissolution of Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Co. Ltd., Mandya on 19.01.1998, he was placed at BMTC and worked in BMTC as conductor from 1998 to 2001. Subsequently, he opted for VRS and requested the OPs for settlement of his PF Claim, since during his employment, out of his salary, his contribution was made towards Provident Fund account
6. The stand taken by OP1 is that M/s Mysore Acetate Chemicals Co. Ltd., was an exempted establishment vide Government Order bearing its own PF Code, SWL 5 LPF 83 dated 23.04.1983, with effect from 01.04.1981 and the Government of Karnataka has issued order granting exemption under Section 17(1) (a) of the EPF & MP Act 1952 and as the said Company was running under loss, was closed from 19.01.1998 and referred to BIFR who had ordered for winding up of the Company and forwarded the proceedings to the Hon’ble High Court for appointment of an Official Liquidator on 07.01.2004 and the Liquidator had taken over the possession of the Funds of the PF Trust. Further OP1 contended that later EPFO, New Delhi has approved for Cancellation of Exemption vide its letter No.1d226:LWA 2005 dated 07.08.2007 and while transferring the balance of PF amounts accumulated in respect of non-settled members, the name of the Complainant was not reflected in the Statement. Since the Complainant had worked with M/s BMTC, Bangalore hence, he had to approach them also, for claiming of his entitled PF amount and hence, OP1 has no role to play in the claim of the Complainant.
7. The stand taken by OP4 is that, as per the procedure adopted, the amount of Provident Fund Contribution was deduced out of the Salary of the Complainant and the same was remitted to the PF Account maintained with its Former employee Mr. T.Niranjanagowda in Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Co. Ltd., Mandya.
8. It is not in dispute, that the Complainant was an Employee in the erstwhile Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Co. Ltd., Mandya and he was member of Employees provident Fund Scheme. It is also not in dispute that M/s Mysore Acetate Chemicals Co. Ltd., bearing PF Code was an exempted establishment vide Govt. Order SWL 5 LPF 83 dated 23.04.1983 with effect from 01.04.1981 and the Government of Karnataka had issued Orders granting Exemption under Section 17(1) (a) of the EPF and MP Act 1952 and P F Account No.4316 (exempted) was allotted to the Company by EPFO.
9. Admittedly, since the Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Co. Ltd., Mandya was running under loss, the same was closed and the service of the Complainant was placed at the disposal of Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation as per the Office Order No. BMTS.G. 2.5459/1998-99 dated 05.11.1998; during his employment, out of his salary, contribution towards provident fund account were deducted regularly. Later, the Complainant had opted for VRS and requested the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.74,360/- being his contribution towards PF, during his service in Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Co. Ltd., Mandya and Rs.19,391/- being his Contribution towards PF account, during his service in BMTC, Bengaluru.
10. The Learned Counsels for both the parties, during the course of their arguments, filed Memos with documentary support.
11. On perusal of the document marked as Annexure-B, produced by the learned Counsel for Appellant, it is seen that M/s Mysore Acetate Employees Provident Fund Trust addressed a letter dated 08.10.2003 to The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Mysore requesting him to recommend to the Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore to sanction Rs 14 Lakhs immediately, to enable them to arrange for final settlement of PF amounts due & payable to the Members who had opted for VRS on account of closure of the Firm, etc., by enclosing the Minutes of Meeting and details of total fund position of the Trust account. Further, on perusal of Annexure-C, under the head ‘outstanding payment’ at Sl.No.11, the Complainant’s Name N Chamaiah is shown as obligatory payment of BMTC was shown as Rs.1,041 and Rs.1,482/-.
12. On perusal of the documents produced by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Complainant, it is seen that M/s Mysore Acetate Chemicals Co. Ltd., Mandya vide its letter dated 31.10.2001 had settled the Voluntary Retirement Benefit of Rs.1,37,938/- to the complainant Mr. N.Chamaiah as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001 and further the Document-Form-23 issued by M/s Mysore Acetate Chemicals Co. Ltd., Mandya showing an amount of Rs.74,360/-(contribution and interest) towards contribution made towards EPF. Further, as per Office Order of BMTC, Bangalore dated 05.12.1998, under Sl No 25, the Complainant Mr N Chamaiah was appointed as Driver to the BMTC and the regular Monthly Wages Slip of the Complainant Mr N Chamaiah was issued by BMTC, which also reflects the deduction made towards Provident Fund & Family Pension.
13. It is also pertinent to note that during the course of arguments, the Respondent No.2 Liquidator had averred that he is not in possession of any document with regard to liquidation proceedings and accordingly, he was given an opportunity to relook into his actions and to produce the require documents to support his contention. After agreeing to the above direction, the Respondent No.2 did not produce any document in support his arguments.
14. Thus, the documents on record discloses that the Complainant while in service at M/s Mysore Acetate Chemicals Co. Ltd., Mandya and BMTC, Bangalore, his contributions were made towards Provident Fund Account. The contention of Appellant/OP1 is that he is not liable to pay the contribution amount to the Complainant and escaping his liability and throwing liability on the other OPs cannot be accepted. It is the bounden duty of the OP1 to recover the amount from either the Employer or Liquidator and BMTC to honour the Claim of the Complainant as per provisions of Employees Pension Scheme. In the circumstances, the Impugned Order is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference from this Commission. However, in our view, awarding of interest @ 12% p.a is slightly on higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal is allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned Order dated 30.03.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.22/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya is hereby modified only in so far as interest awarded by the District Commission is concerned and rest of the award of the District Commission remains un-disturbed.
15. The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.
16. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*s
