SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT … The factual matrix of case is that, the complainant was working as a Carpenter 1st class (NMR) vides EPF A/c No. OR/2954 under the OP.no.1, previously it was under E.E., Indravati Dam Division, Deopalli, Dist.of Koraput, Odisha from 14.10.1981 and retrenched on 15.06.1986. He contends that the previous establishment had deposited EPF & FPF amount from 01.12.1981 to 31.12.1984 for some Work charged employees vide EPF Code No. OR/2954. As per EPS Rules he is eligible to deposit EPF & FPF amount from 01.12.81 to 15.06.86, hence he submitted a R.T.I. application on dt.07.11.16 to the OP.1 to allot EPF A/c No. vide EPF code no. OR/2954 but no action yet been taken by the OP.1 and till date the OP.s has not deposited his EPF & FPF amount from dt.01.12.81 to 15.06.86. So he contends that the action of OP.s is amounts to deficiency in service, hence prayed to issue the EPF account no, to direct the OP.1 to deposit EPF & FPF amount from 01.12.81 to 15.6.86 along with Rs.60,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.
2. The OP.1 has filed his written argument to contend that, the case is barred by limitation and not maintainable before the forum. He further contends that the complainant was worked under the Water Resources Dept, and he was a worker of Indravati Project from 14.10.81 to 15.6.86 and the project was handed over to the newly formed OHPC Ltd w.e.f 01.04.96. After lapse of a long period the complainant filed for his extension of EPF benefit, hence is not maintainable. If any claim arises is the absolute jurisdiction of EPF authority and the present complaint is not under the judicature of this forum. Inter alia, he specified nothing except evasive denials and prayed to dismiss the case.
3. The counsel for OP.no.2 has filed his counter and averred that, the complainant neither filed any grievance nor appeared before the OP.2 regarding non extension of PF benefits from 12/81 to 06/86. But on receipt of the complaint the OP.2 has deputed his area Enforcement Officer to visit the establishment & verify the relevant records and submit a detail report in this regard for taking further course of action towards his claims. Hence there is no deficiency on his part, so he prayed to dismiss the case in the interest of justice.
4. The complainant has filed copy of some documents as per his index. The OP.s filed nothing except their respective counters. Case heard from both sides at length and perused the record.
5. It reveals from the record that the complainant was an employee under the OP.1 as Carpenter 1st class (NMR) from 14.10.81 and retrenched from service on dt.15.6.1986. It is seen from record that the previous establishment had deposited EPF & FPF amount from dt.01.12.81 to 31.12.84 of some work charged co-employees but the complainant was deprived from the EPF & FPF deposits though he had served under the establishment until 15.6.1986. The complainant has several times approached the OP.s through persuasions but no action so far been taken by the OP.s. On the other hand the OP.1 unless cooperate the complainant for his pensionary benefits, he stressed on the point of limitation.
6. It would be pertinent to refer letter no. OR/RPFC/AA/2/78/229 dt.21.7.1981 of Sri K.L.Jamba, the PFC addressed to J.S.Baijal Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Irrigation & Power deptt. Of Odisha Govt which referring Govt. of India notification No.4(3)/61/PF-11 dt.23.9.1980 on amendment of para 26 suggested that “all such Executive Engineers in Power & Irrigation department establishments attract the provisions of above mentioned Act and are required to report compliance by depositing the provident fund contributions”. Catena of Hob'ble Supreme Court judgment has observed that the employees should be covered under the Act since their date of joining.
7. Further, the OP contends that, the matter of dispute being relating to EPF contributions, which is under the jurisdiction of solely of EPF authorities under the EPF & MP Act 1952, the consumer forums have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. This forum do not consider the point valid ground of defense, on the path of the Section 3 of the Act, which states that the provisions of the Act, is not in derogation of any other laws but in addition to them Catena of Supreme court judgments have held that, EPF contributions and any disputes in the matter, can be relegated to the foras under CP Act-1986, as well the authorities under EPF & MP Act.
8. Before delving to the conclusion we are of the view that the complainant inflicted great losses mentally and financially due to the dilly dallying tactics of OP.s. Hence we found deficiency in service on the part of OP.s. As thus we allowed the complaint in favour of complainant.
ORDER
i. The OP.1 & 2 are hereby directed to take rapid actions as per provisions of EPF Rules to settle the claim of complainant and the actions shall compliance to this forum with immediate effect.
ii. The OP.2 is hereby directed to provide the EPF & FPF dues pending against the complainant if any, and any other relief pending against the complainant with immediate effect. No cost.
iii. All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which, the total amount shall bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Order pronounced in the open forum on 15th day of Dec' 2017.
sd/- sd/- sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT,DCDRF,
(Sri R.S.Nayak) (Smt M.Padhi) (Sri G.K.Rath)
