MR RAMSANKAR NAYAK, MEMBER…             The fact of case in brief is that, the complainant was working as Contingent Khalasi under General Manager, UIP, Khatiguda, dist of Nabarangpur, Now Project Administrator, UIHEP, Khatiguda since 01.08.1989 and terminated from service w.e.f. 31.03.1993. He had submitted a representation on dt.05.01.2000 to Project Administrator, UIHEP for payment of salary amount from 3/92 to 31.3.93 but for no use. As per Lr no.37 dt.03.01.2005 of Administrative Officer, O/o Project Administrator, UIHEP, Khatiguda, Lr no. SRO/BAM/Cov 2001-10052 of APFC, SRO, OPA, UIHEP, Khatiguda have allotted EPF account numbers vide No. OR/10052 to his coworkers contingent khalasis and also deposited EPF amount from 01.04.1996 to 31.12.1999 except him. As per Lr no.13336 dt.29.12.1987 of RPFC, Bhubaneswar, he is eligible to deposit EPF & FPF amount from 01.08.1989 to 31.03.1993 vide EPF code No. OR/10052. Further he sought information through RTI to know the date of joining, retrench & issuance of attendance of his service to the PIO, O/o E.E, Podagada Dam Division, UIHEP, Khatiguda but for no action so far. He further contends that, Chief Construction Engineer (C) UIHEP, Khatiguda has intimate him that no such person named Trilochan Nayak was working as a contingent khalasi in their office as verified from the acquaintance roll for the period 01.02.92 to 31.03.93 and the attendance of contingent khalasi from the period 01.03.92 to 31.03.93 is not available in their office. Due to nonpayment of salary amount from 3/92 to 31.03.93, Non deposit of EPF & FPF amount from 01.08.1989 to 31.3.93 and non allotment of EPF A/c no against code no. OR/10052, the complainant inflicted great losses with mentally, financially and physically. Hence the complainant prayed to allow his entire claim as specified in complaint petition along with a total sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation and cost.

2.         The OP.no.1 has entered his appearance and filed his counter to contend that, the complainant is not a consumer. The cause of action arouse above 2 decades hence the case is time barred. The case is not a service matter hence the forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. He as well as denied the claims narrated by complainant in his complaint petition. He also contends that as far as EPF contribution is concerned, the OP.no.4 is empowered to answer the same according to Sec. 7A of EPF Act. Besides he relied some decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission. He further submitted that, the complainant was not in service from 3/92 to 31.03.93 and has not rendered duty, so the question of payment of salary for the said period is does not arise. He stated that as there is no deficiency in service on his part, the complaint is liable to dismiss in the ends of justice.

3.         The OP.no.2 entered his appearance and filed counter and averred that, the instant matter is a RTI dispute and the forum has no power to interfere in RTI Act. Further he specified nothing except evasive denials and prayed to dismiss the complaint in the ends of justice.

4.         The counsel for OP.4 appeared and filed his counter to contend that, on verification of office record F-9(R) submitted by establishment in respect of code no. OR/10052 it is found that the name of complaint did not appear. However the OP.4 has directed the area Enforcement Officer to visit the establishment and verify the documents and submit a report with supporting documents in support of the claim from the date of eligibility i.e. from 01.08.1989. Hence he prayed to dismiss the case in the limine. 

5.         It reveals from office order No.2795 dt.11.02.1991 of General Manager, UIP shows that Trilochan Nayak, the complainant in Sl no.22 of the list in the order is appointed in contingent establishment for 89 days from 31.01.1991 with consolidated pay of Rs.750/- p.m. again office order no.4699 dt.12.3.91 & order no.9130 dt.13.5.91, order no.16757 dt.16.9.91, order no.5990 dt.30.3.92 of the same G.M.Indravati Project reiterates the same order, with a difference that, the pay was brought down from 750/- p.m. to Rs.650/- p.m. as consolidated.

6.         In reply to para 1 of the complaint of OP contends it is admitted that the complainant has worked from 02.11.1990 to 29.2.1992, on temporary basis for 89 days. But, the OP filed copy of one application (ext B-1) which bears endorsement of E.E, that, Trilochan Nayak should be paid his pay from 04.08.90, which clearly contradicts the above statement of OP that, the complainant was engaged since 02.11.90. Further lr. UIP of Estt III. 16/17218 dt.9.10.90 of G.M. shows that Trilochan Nayak is appointed since 04.08.90 the copy of which is supplied to us by OP.s (Ext B-2).

7.         Again vide order no.5990 dt.30.3.92 of G.M. UIP, copy of which is supplied to us (Ext B-3) in regards to payment of the complainant from 25.2.92 to 29.2.92. But the OP as above, having all the information, at their disposal has tried deliberately, malfeasantly to reject the RTI application of the complainant dt.4.1.16 vide his reply through lr.no.274 dt.25.1.16 to say that no such person named Trilochan Nayak was working as contingent Khalasi, for the period of 01.2.92 to 31.3.93.

8.         The OP.4 entered appearance on 12.07.16 to contend that, the complainant is not covered under EPF fold against the EPF code of OR/10052 belonging to the OP.2 establishment and the complainant never complained of the matter to their office. Hence, there is no deficiency on their part, as thus they prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them. Considered.

9.         Perusal of evidences in record, submitted by the parties as discussed above, filed sworn affidavit of the complainant it is clear that, the complainant worked since 04.08.90 to 31.3.93 and he was entitled for EPF contribution for the period. The plea of the OP.1 that he took over the charge of the Indravati Project only on 1996 and liabilities prior to that cannot be levied, is unacceptable, as if on a transaction, he is to enjoy the benefits of assets, cannot deny the liabilities underlying such benefits. Hence he is liable to discharge the liabilities of EPF contributions of employees, even prior to such undertaking that accrued against the establishment. Hence, he is to pay the EPF contribution, of both employer & employee @ 20% on monthly payment of Rs.650/- for 32 months which comes to Rs.4160/- including damage & compensations.

            As thus we allowed the complaint against the OP.1 with cost.

                                                                        ORDER

i.          The OP.no.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.4160/- (Rupees four thousand one hundred & sixty only) as the contributions towards EPF of both employer & employee @ 20% on monthly payment of Rs.650/- for 32 months along with prevail rate of Bank interest to the complainant. Inter alia to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) as compensation and Rs.2000/- (Two thousand) towards the litigation cost.

ii.         The above orders shall be complied with in 30 days of receipt this order, failing which, the total sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization.

            Pronounced in the open forum on 29th day of April, 2017.

                      Sd/-                                                             Sd/-

                MEMBER                                              MEMBER, DCDRF,

                                                                                 NABARANGPUR