In pursuance to the notice received under Section 8F of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent State Bank of India debited the sum of Rs.1,27,532/- from the Current Account of the petitioner and credited the same to the Account of original Provident Fund Commissioner.  Aggrieved by this, the

-2-

petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging therein that the bank had wrongly withdrawn the sum of Rs.1,27,532/- in collusion with the E.P.F. authorities; that the said amount could not be recovered from its Account because as per notice, the amount was required to be recovered from the account of M/s Vivekanand School.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint on 28.11.2007 with the following observations:

“it is clear from the clarification of the OP bank that the bank did not breach the privacy of the complainant’s account and the bank complied with the provision of Section-8 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.  Accordingly, there is no deficiency in the services of the OP bank and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation, for which the complaint is liable to be dismissed.”  

          Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed with the following observations:

-3-

“4. Learned counsel for the complainant also argued that the notice dated 20.11.2002 (Paper No.36) was a got-up notice in view of the fact that the actual notice dated 20.11.2002 (Paper No.18) would indicate that the provident fund dues pertained to a school named as Vivekanand School, Jogiwala, Dehradun, as such mentioned in the actual notice and the respondent – bank was not legally obliged to part with the said amount from the account of the complainant and in doing so, it acted negligently and made deficiency in service.  The averment made in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit of Sh. Vipin Chadha, who was the Branch Manager of the respondent – bank at the relevant time, prove that initially the notice dated 20.11.2002 (Paper No.18) relating to Vivekanand School was served by the Regional/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun and finding that there was no such account with the respondent – bank, the EPF officials were informed accordingly.  Thereafter, the EPF officials went to the office of the complainant and came back after sometime and served another notice relating to the account number of the complainant and also informed the said Branch Manager that they had served a copy of the notice on the complainant and which had been received by their accountant.  That way, second notice was served on the respondent – bank on 20.11.2002 itself, as referred above and finding that it

-4-

related to the account of the complainant, the Branch Manger of the respondent – bank was legally obliged to part with the above-mentioned amount under the relevant provision of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.  Therefore, we would not subscribe to the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that the second notice dated 20.11.2002 (Paper No.36) was a got-up notice and the respondent – bank, thus, made deficiency in service in allowing withdrawal of the said amount from the account of the complainant.  The District Forum has, in our view, also rightly taken into account the second notice in proper prospective to reject the contention of the complainant and accept the version of the respondent – bank that it was legally obliged to part with the above amount on having been served with the notice relating to the current account of the complainant.  Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent – bank also rightly drew our attention to the provision of Section 8-I of the Employees ’Provident Funds and Misc. provisions Act, 1952, under which the respondent – bank was legally obliged to permit withdrawal of the above-mentioned amount from the account of the complainant, for being remitted to the Regional / Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun.  That way, the respondent –

-5-

bank has not made any deficiency in service towards its customer, the complainant.”

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the respondent was legally obliged to part with the sum of Rs.1,27,532/- in pursuance to the notice issued to the respondent bank under Section 8 F of the Employees Provident Fund and miscellaneous petitions Act 1952 By the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.  It is correct that in the first notice, the name of M/s Vivakanand School was mentioned which was substituted by another notice of the same date under Section 8 F requiring the respondent bank to pay the amount.

            We agree with the view taken by the fora below that there is no deficiency in service on part of the respondent bank.  Dismissed.