Orissa

Rayagada

CC/181/2017

Smt. Sandhya Arati Satapthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Project Manager, PREPARE, Amalabhata, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

23 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 181 / 2017.                                           Date.    23     .     4  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       Preident.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Smt. Sandhya Arati  Satapathy, W/O: Sri Ajit Kumar Tripathy, J.K.Pur, Chandili, Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                                                              …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Project  Manager,  Prepare, Amalabhata,Po:Penta, PS:Chandili, Dist: Rayagada.

2. The Director, Prepare, H.O. Sathalvar Street, Mongappair  West, Chennai- 600 037.                                                                                                                  .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri R.R.Khatua,  and associates, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri Ram Prasad Patra, Advocate, Rayagada.

.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of unpaid salary from January, 2014 to March,2014 and P.F. contribution deducted from the salary   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

On being noticed the O.Ps appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

  Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute that the complainant was working  under the O.Ps and entitled  salary  each month  after P.F. deduction Rs.7,260/-.  The complainant  has resigned from service on Dt. 31.3.2014 and relived on the same day as per resignation letter  of the complainant with endorsement of the then Project Manager which is in the file marked as Annexure-I. The salary for the period from January, 2014 to March, 2014 had also credited  by the O.Ps  in the S.B. account No. 913010019724094 of the  complainant.. In support of the statement  signed by the complainant  towards receipt of salary  are  in the file which are marked as  Annexure-2 to 4.

Regarding  non receipt of E.P.F amount the O.Ps in their written version para-4  clearly mentioned that  they have submitted the E.P.F. form No. 19 on  Dt.28.11.2016  and her UAN No. 100244949628 and P.F. No. TNAMB/0030877/388/80/3 to the proper   authority  for disbursement of  E.P.F amount  but due to  non-cooperation of the complainant it  was rejected.

On perusal of the record we find there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps

At  this stage this forum observed   the interest of justice  would met if  the complainant apply a fresh application to the appropriate authority  through the O.Ps to get the  E.P.F amount 

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                                      

                                                            ORDER.

            In  resultant    the complaint petition is allowed  in  part  on  contest against  the O.Ps. 

The complainant is directed  to  apply  fresh  application to the appropriate authority  through  the O.Ps.  to get the E.P.F amount.  The O.Ps are directed  to co-operate the complainant  to get the E.P.F. amount as early as possible.

With the above direction the  C.C. case is disposed off. Under the above circumstances  there is no order as to  costs and  compensation.

Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this                    23rd.   Day of     April  ,   2018.

 

Member.                                                             Member.                                                             President