DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 3rd day of May, 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 81 of 2015
Sri Deepak Nayak
S/o Santosh Nayak
At/Po: Rajmukundapur
Via: Arnapal
Ps: Bhadrak (R)
Dist: Bhadrak, Pin- 756116 (Odisha)
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan
Block- 34
1st & 2nd Floor
SDA Complex
Kasumpti
Shimla- 171009
Himachal Prades
2. Manager, Birla Textile Mills
Said Road, Baddi
Dist: Solan (Himachal Prades)
Pin- 173205
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant: Sri S. Tripathy & Others
For the O.Ps: Sri P. C Mishra, Authorized representative
Date of hearing: 23.11.2016/ 09.02.2017
Date of order: 03.05.2018
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
The dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The complainant is the permanent resident of the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and also was an employee under OP No. 2 and had been drawing his salary regularly till dt. 10.04.2015. The service of the complainant commenced from 25.01.2014 and continued till 10.04.2015 due to total closure of Birla Textile Mills in Himachal Pradesh. While working in the aforementioned industry, the complainant was enrolled as a member of Regional Provident Fund Commission, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh Vide EPF A/c No- 14426. Soon after closure of the Textile Mills, complainant made several correspondences with OP No. 1 for withdrawal and final closure of the PF account which was not responded by the O.Ps. It is also stated by the complainant that the OP No. 2 has been deducting @ Rs 600/- per month from his salary to deposit the same in the PF account together with the employer contribution. The complainant has made a series of representations for settlement of his claim but the O.Ps turned a deaf year to the representations of the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service. Finally on 16.07.2015 O.Ps refused to settle the claim of the complainant and the complainant, being deprived of his legitimate dues, finding no other alternative filed this dispute praying for a direction to the OP No. 1 to release the deposited amount together with interest and compensation with cost of litigation.
OP No. 2 did not appear before the Forum nor submitted any written version for which the said OP was set ex-parte.
OP No. 1 appeared before the Forum through its authorized representative and contested the case. In the written version answering OP raised the issue of maintainability on the ground of jurisdiction, and cause of action. OP No. 1 (Here-in-after referred to as ‘OP’ ) has also denied the allegations brought in the complainant only other then admitting the fact of membership number and amount deposited in the PF account of the complainant.
The OP has objected in stating that the PF account number of the complainant is HP/1739/14426 and the date of enrollment of membership in O.P’s organization is 25.02.2014. The date of closure of the said textile mill is 07.07.2015 instead of 10.04.2015 as mentioned in the complaint as the OP has received contribution up to 07.07.2015. Hence the date furnished by the complainant in the complaint are found incorrect and imaginary. That apart the amount of contribution made by the complainant during service period differs from month to month but not as mentioned in the complaint. The most important is that the complainant has not submitted P.F claim application in the prescribed form for final withdrawal of claim benefits to the R.P.F.C, Shimla Office till date and under such a situation OP is absolutely unable to release the P.F dues as claimed by the complainant. Furthermore the OP has also objected that no final withdrawal would be allowed or released before completion of 2 months waiting period as provided under Para 69 (1) of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act 1952. As the instant dispute has been filed before expiry of waiting period of two months, it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
Gone through the complaint, written version and materials on record and observed as detailed below.
1. OP, in course of hearing, raised the issue of maintainability in stating that all the O.Ps belong to Himachal Pradesh and those are having no branch office under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum nor they have got any business interest nor the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Forum. Authorized representative of the OP also cited the decision of Supreme Court in the year 2003 in a revision case between Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. where in it is held that the dispute is maintainable there where the cause of action arose and if the OP have no branch office or any business interest in the territorial jurisdiction where the dispute has been preferred. In the instant case both the O.Ps have no business interest or branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of DCDRF Bhadrak. It is also a fact that the complainant has not impleaded the Central Provident Fund Commissioner as a necessary party which would have attracted the jurisdiction everywhere in India. As the Central Provident Commissioner has not been impleaded as a necessary party, the dispute so filed does not invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence the dispute lacks merit and not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction.
2. Secondly the complaint has claimed to have applied for final withdrawal of the amount contributed by him and the employer continuously till he lost the job due to total closure of Birla Textile Mills in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh which is denied by the OP. OP objected that that the complainant has not submitted application in the prescribed Form duly recommended by the employer to the RPFC Shimla, Himachal Pradesh nor even a plain application which would have provided ample opportunity to the organization (OP) to advise the complainant about the proper procedure for final drawl of the PF deposits together with interest. We perused the materials on record and observed that the complainant has not adduced a single scrap of paper as evidence in support of his claim for which the allegation is not sustainable.
For the reasons as narrated above and taking the narrated facts into consideration it is held that this dispute suffers from infirmity and liable to be dismissed. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed and in the circumstances without cost. However the complainant is at liberty to apply afresh for final withdrawal of the amount from his PF account in the prescribed form duly recommended by his employer to RPFC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh for consideration.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 3rd May, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
