DATE OF FILING: 09.11.2017
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 05.07. 2022
For the complainant: Adv. Sri Kailash Chandra Mishra,
Adv. Dr. Laxmi Narayan Dash
Adv. Sri Balabhadra Raguru
For the Opp. Party – 1: Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division, Ganjam – II, In-Person.
For the Opp. Party – 2: Adv. Sri Surya Narayan Mohapatra
Sri P.Surya Rao, President:
Brief fact–
The complainant has already got financial benefits from the opposite party no.2 after filling of CC 78/2016 under Form-19 and Form No.10-C. The complainant did service as Fitter Grade-I in NMR from 01.05.1981 to 31.12.2009 under opposite party no.1 and thereafter upgraded to Helper under work-charged establishment on 01.01.2010 till his retirement on superannuation on 31.03.2015. The opposite party no.1 is covered under the provisions of EPF and M.P Act, 1952 and accordingly, the complainant was enrolled having EPF Account no.: OR/BAM/11188/90. To get back the EPF dues for the period worked as NMR till upgraded to Helper under Work-Charged establishment and after retirement for monthly pension under EPF & MP Act, 1952 EPF Pension Scheme, 1995 respectively from the opposite party no.2 the complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint.
The Commission admitted the Consumer Complaint and issued notice to both the opposite parties. Duly acknowledging the notices, both the opposite parties filed their written version. The opposite party no.1 remained absent thereafter. But the complainant and opposite party no.2 had filed their evidence on affidavit and written argument respectively for proper adjudication of the case.
We heard both the parties at length. A bare perusal of the record reveals that, the opposite party no.1 has vehemently objected to the claim of the complainant as there is a case pending before the learned OAT, Cuttack in OA No.:1790(c)/2015 for a selfsame fact but he did not filed present status of the said case. But the opposite party no.2 has submitted that they have deputed an Enforcement Officer to verify the veracity of the fact as per complaint vide their Office Order No:RO/BAM/Enf/OR/11188/7230, Dated:10.01.2018 soon after receipt of the notice from this Commission. Law is well settled that, the opposite party no.2 cannot be provided benefits to the complainant unless both the employer and employee have been heard under EPF Act which is pending to date with them. The opposite party no.2 further submitted that by the above cited Office Order, the enforcement officer of their office has issued direction to the opposite party no.1 to produce relevant documents vide L.No.420/Dated:13.04.2018 but everything is in vain.
The present complaint is based on the EPF Act which is enacted to look after the different grievances of beneficiaries enrolled under the EPF Act as account holder. The complainant specifically mentioned in his evidence on the affidavit regarding the inquiries under Sec.7A of the EPF & MP Act. But the complainant in the instant case has not filed any relevant documents showing that he approached the appropriate authority of EPFO opposite party no.2 to redress his grievance as per evidence. Hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no consumer dispute is raised in the complaint.
In the case on hand, however, the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation at Head Office, New Delhi has issued a new Guidelines bearing No.:C-II/20/76/Misc./2020/CBE/TN/027, Dated:14.02.2020 for initiation of inquiries under Sec.7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
In the above circumstances, there is a need of adducing of detail evidence under the guidelines mentioned supra and EPF Act. We are not inclined to entertain the Complaint. The complaint of the Complainant is dismissed and the complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Forums and Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of complaint in said Forums.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.
A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack for information and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet. After compliance the case record be consigned to record room.
This order is pronounced on 5th July 2022 in open commission under the signature and seal of this Commission.
I agree I agree
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member (W) Member President
Evidence affidavit of the Complainant is filed as PW-1.
A written argument of the complainant is filed.
No Evidence affidavit of the opposite party no.1 is filed.
No written argument filed by the Opposite Party no.1.
Evidence affidavit of the opposite party no.2: DW 1
A written argument is filed by the Opposite Party no.2.
List of Exhibits:-
On behalf of the Complainant:-
- Annexure 1 – Gradation List of NMR under OP no.1 – wherein Sl. No.3 is the Complainant of this case.
- Annexure 2 – Memo No.:894/Dtd:09.03.2015 – regarding Retirement on Superannuation of the complainant.
On behalf of the Opposite Party no.1:-
- Annexure A – Notification No.:7323/Dtd:28.02.2009 – Bring over NMR employees to the Work-charged establishment.
- Annexure B – Notification Dated:19.01.2015 – Amendment in the Odisha Work-Charged Employees (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 1974.
- Annexure C – Financial Rule/Form no.21 – Dated:12.08.2015 – payment of retirement gratuity.
- Annexure D – Resolution No.:21828/Dated:07.09.1995 – Regularization of services of NMR and Work-Charged employees.
On behalf of the Opposite Party no.2:-
- Annexure 1 – Form No.:9(R) submitted by the establishment.
- Annexure 2 – Letter No:6225/Dtd:24.08.2015 – submitted by the establishment.
- Annexure 3 – Letter No.:13790/Dtd:15.09.2011 – submitted by the Chief Engineer of the establishment.
- Annexure 4 – Claim form no.:10C.
(Dict.)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER (W) MEMBER PRESIDENT
