This common order shall dispose of above mentioned revision petitions as the facts and point of law involved in them are the same.

-2-

          Complainant/respondent was an employee of M/s Cellulo9se Products of India Ltd. from 1.12.1997 to 31.8.1998.  He was also a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.   He was retrenched from services.  Thereafter, for withdrawal of his Provident Fund, he submitted Form 19 on 12.9.1999.  The claim was to be settled by 11.9.1999.  No action was taken on Form 19.  He again submitted Form 19 on 16.11.1999 and thereafter, for the third time, on 17.5.2000.  According to him, a sum of Rs.84,798/- was deposited in his account by the employer.  Interest due was calculated upto October, 2000.  He claimed that the interest which was required to be calculated on the total amount worked out after adding as on 1.4.1993; he also claimed in interest for the period from 1.3.1992 to 28.2.1993.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent as under:

             “The opposite party will provide to the complainant all the statements of account without any overwriting or correction, ledger and worksheet, will sit with the complainant, calculate the amount of

-3-

employee/employer’s shares of contribution, and pay to the complainant the amount, so worked out, with interest at the rate declared by the Government Notification or in the event of failure in doing so, alternatively, will pay Rs.25,000/-, on account, with interest thereon at the rate of 10% p.a. 

   The interest was required to be paid by calculating the interest every month from 1992/1993 and 1993/1994 and therefore the opposite party will pay to the complainant the balance amount out of the interest calculated in this manner.

   The opposite party will pay to the complainant the interest @ 12% on Rs.84748/- for November-2000 and December-2000.

   The opposite party will pay to the complainant Rs.5000/- towards mental harassment.

   The opposite party will pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- towards expenses.”

Respondent did not file any appeal before the State Commission.  The Original Provident Fund Commissioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum except it reduced the costs and the amount of compensation.

-4-

          We have gone through the order passed by the State Commission and find no infirmity in the same.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission has rightly reduced the costs as well as the amount of compensation.  Dismissed.  No costs.