DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, BOLANGIR
Presents:-
1 Sri A.K.Purohit, President
2 Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated , Bolangir the 31th day of December’ 2018
C.C. No. 40 of 2018
1 Durga Prasadd Mishra, Son of late sahadev Mishra, age about 79 years
Resident of Tikrapada, Bolangir Town, Po/Ps/District- Bolangir
2 Bipin Bihari Tripathy, Son of late Raghunath Tripathy, aged about-77 years
Resident of Tikrapada, Bolangir Town, Po/Ps/District- Bolangir
3 Hrushikesh Bhoi, Son of Late Ghadaram Bhoi, aged about-83 years
Resident of Tikrapada, Bolangir Town, Po/Ps/District- Bolangir
4 Kabi Charan Bag, Son of late Nakula bag, aged about-60 years
resident of malpada, Bolangir town, Po/Ps/District- Bolangir
5 Nirmal Chandra Bag, Son of late Dwaru Bag, aged about-62 years
Resident of village- Burobhadi, Po- Badatika, Ps- Loisingha, Dist- Bolangir
6 Abhaya Prasad Sahu, aged about-78 years, son of Late Akula Sahu
Resident of baghbhadi, Po- Khujenpali, ps- Bolangir sadar, District- Bolangir
-Versue-
1. The Commissioner, Employees provident Fund,
Regional office, Odisha , Bhubaneswar, Bhabishyanidhi Bhaban,
Janpath, Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
2 The Liqidator, R.C.M.S.Ltd, Bolangir-cum-Assistant Register of Co-op.
Societies, Bolangir, R/o, Po.Ps and District- Bolangir
Adv. For the Complainant: - None
Adv. For O.P :- None
Date of filing of the Case :-31.07.2018
Date of Order :- 31.12.2018
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. All the 6 complainants have preferred this case jointly as they are having the same interest and having the same cause of action against the same O.Ps. The case of the complainants is that, they are the ex-employees of RCMS Ltd. Balangir and during their service period all the complainants have joined in the EPF scheme and are subscriber of the said scheme vide EPF A/C No. OR/1905/2, OR/1905/1, OR/1905/4, OR/1905/11, OR/1905/12, and OR/1905/15. All the complainants have contributed their employee share from 1982 to 1987 . The complainants have alleged that, in spite of their repeated request the O.Ps. have not released their provident funds dues. Hence finding no other alternative the complainants have preferred this case.
2. Both the O.Ps. have contested this case by filing their written version separately. According to the O.P.1 , he has received the contribution amount of Durga Prasad Mishra, Bipin Bihari Tripathy and Hrushikesh Bhoi from 1982 to 1984 and has not received the contribution amount from other employees. Accordingly during pendency of this case the O.P.,1 has send letter vide letter No. 1430 dated 28.9 2018 for applying the EPF amount in prescribed form. The O.P.1 claims no deficiency of service on his part. According to O.P.2 The complainants are the ex-employees of RCMS Ltd. Balalngir which has been liquidated since 21.6.2000 and the service of the complainants have been terminated since 30.6.2000 and the functioning of the RCMS has been stopped since 1986. The O.P.2 claims no deficiency in service on his part and submitted that, the O.P. 1 is liable to release the EPF amount.
3. Heard both the parties. Perused the material available on record. All the complainants are present on call. The complainants have submitted that they are subscriber of EPF scheme and their EPF amount has been deducted by the employer from their salary from 1982 to 1987 but till now their amount has not been released by the O.P.1. On the other hand the O.P. 2 submitted that after deduction of the amount from the salary of the complainants the same has been deposited before the O.P.1 through treasury chalan including the share of the employer from 1982 to 1987. The O.P.1 has not argued on any point.
4. It is mandatory under the EPF scheme for the employee of every establishment to join in the scheme. Under the said scheme an employee has to pay a certain contribution towards the scheme and an equal contribution is paid by the employer. The employee gets a lump sum amount including self and employers contribution with interest on both on retirement.
5. In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainants are ex-employee of RCMS, Ltd., Balangir. It is also an admitted fact that the Establishment covered under the provisions of EPF Act 1952. In his written version the O.P.1 has admitted that he has received the amount of three complainants up to the year 1984. From this admitted fact it appears that since the EPF Scheme is mendatory for the employee of all establishment to subscribe the scheme all the complainant must have joined in the scheme till their termination. During course of argument the O.P.2 on verification of the EPF File maintained by his office has submitted that the EPF amount of all the complaints have been deducted from their salary and the same has been deposited through treasury Challan up to the year 1987 including the share of the employer. Therefore with these submission and material available on record it is believed that, all the complainants have joined in the EPF scheme from the date of their joining in the service till the RCMS is functioning i.e from 1982 to 1987 and they have contributed to the funds and hence the O.P. 1 is liable to pay the legitimate amount of the complainant. The O.P No. 1 has not produce any evidence either by way of affidavit or other wise to show that only 3 complainants are subscriber from 1982 to 1984 and other 3 complainants are not subscriber of the scheme. Hence the plea taken by the O.P.No.1 in his written version is not supported by any evidence.
6. There is no evidence available on record to show that, the O.P. 1 has intimated the complainants for release of their funds after the subscription is discontinued nor has taken any step for release of the funds in favour of the complainants. For the first time during the pendency of this case the O.P. 1 has intimated three complainants to proceed as per the prescribed format. This act of the O.P. 1 amounts to deficiency in service on his part. The complainants have debarred from their legitimate claim and are entitled to compensation. Further the O.P.2 has also not taken any step to intimate the complainants about their EPF funds and has also not taken any step for obtaining the account slip of the employee. This negligence act of the O.P.2 amounts to deficiency in service on his part and for the said act of the O.P.2 the complainants are remain in dark about their EPF amount. Under the circumstances both the O.Ps. are liable to pay compensation to the complainants. Hence ordered:-
ORDER
The O.P.No.1 is directed to pay the EPF amount of all the complainants calculating upto the year 1987 in the same ratio calculated up to 1984 in his written version with accrued interest within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Further both the O.ps. are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- ( Ten thousands) to each complainant towards cost and compensation within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open Forum to-day the 31 day of December 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
