1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that her father late Jagabandhu Majhi during his life time was working under OP.1 as Watchman and was a subscriber to EPF who retired on 31.1.1986 on superannuation.  It is submitted that the EPF account number was neither supplied by the Ops to late Majhi nor a single paper regarding deductions of EPF amount from the salary has been issued and hence the complainant being the daughter of late Majhi had no scope to quote the account number to claim EPF benefit before the Ops.  It is also submitted that the Ops have not supplied any paper for claim of EPF dues.  Thus alleging deficiency n service on the part of the Ops, she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to supply the a/c number of late employee and to take immediate steps for final settlement of EPF dues and other benefits with interest in favour of the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 in his counter stated that no such employee was ever working in his establishment and hence question of a/c number and settlement of EPF dues does not arise.  The OP.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that on verification of office record the OP found that one person namely Jagabandhu Majhi, S/o. Damodar Majhi appeared and his EPF A/c number is OR/2951/73.  On receipt of claim application from Jagabandhu Majhi they have already settled the PF dues and a sum of Rs.3403/- has been released to Jagabandhu Majhi on 04.01.1988 and hence any EPF due from this account does not arise.  Thus denying any dues, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                 Heard from the complainant as well as A/Rs for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the complainanant stated that her late father Jagabandhu Majhi was an employee under OP.1 and was retired during 1986 but the EPF account number allotted in his favour was never supplied by the OP.1 to her father.  On approach the OP.1 also did not supply the number to the complainant and hence the dues of her late father are yet to be released.

5.                     The OP.1 stated that Jagabandhu Majhi was never an employee of his establishment.  However, the OP.2 on verification of his office record found that the account number OR/2951/73 is allotted in favour of Jagabandhu Majhi and after retirement, the amount has been settled in his favour and a sum of Rs.3403/- has been paid to him on 04.1.1988.  As revealed from the office of OP.2, the dues under the account have been paid to the subscriber, Jagabandhu Majhi on 04.01.1988 and hence we find no merit in the case of the complainant which is liable to be dismissed.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is dismissed having no merit.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)