For Complainants : Sri Raghuram Khillo, A/R.
For OP No.1 : None
For OP No.2 : None
For OP No.3 : Sri K. N. Samantaray, Advocate
For OP No.4 : Sri Sudhakar Das, A/R.
The above cases have been filed by the complainants against the same Opp. Parties for same and similar cause of action and hence the cases were taken up together and heard for a common order.
Name Work Place EPF A/c No. Employee’s Employer’s ESI Contri
Share Share -bution(both)
1.Bhanupriya Paik, ICDS-Sunabeda OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000239 + Rs.285/-
2. Rasmita Podal, ICDS-Semiliguda OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000236 + Rs.285/-
3.Alok Behera, ICDS-Laxmipur OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000238 + Rs.285/-
4.Debashree Behera, ICDS-Boiparig OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000248 + Rs.285/-
5.Bikash Samal, ICDS-Borigumma OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000247 + Rs.285/-
6.Miss. K. P. Jena, ICDS-Koraput OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000240 + Rs.285/-
7.Prasant Panigrahi, ICDS-Lamtaput OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000243 + Rs.285/-
8.R. K. Panda, ICDS-Kundra OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000241 + Rs.285/-
9.Smt. R. Samantra, ICDS-Jeypore OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000245 + Rs.285/-
10.R. K. Lenka, ICDS-Nandapur OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000250 + Rs.285/-
11.Raghuram Khillo, ICDS-N. Patna OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000237 + Rs.285/-
12.S. K. Sasmal, ICDS-Kotpad OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000246 + Rs.285/-
13.S. K. Panda, DSWO-Koraput OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000244 + Rs.285/-
14.Smt. S. Das, ICDS-Dasmantpur OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000249 + Rs.285/-
15.D. Satapathy, ICDS-Bandhugam OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000235 + Rs.285/-
16.Amit Pradhan, ICDS-Pottangi OR/BBS/0006025/ Rs.720/- + Rs.817/- Rs.105/-
000/0000242 + Rs.285/-
It is submitted that the EPF & ESI subscriptions were being deducted from the salary of the complainant every month by OP.1 after opening the respective accounts and the OP.2 was supposed to pay the EPF & ESI matching shares through the OP.1 (service provider) to deposit the same with the respective authorities. It is further submitted that, when the complainants wanted to withdraw the deposits, they came to know that the EPF subscriptions have not been deposited with OP.3. Similarly when the complainants required the services of OP.4, they were denied the benefits for want of deposit of subscription. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, they have filed these cases praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund their EPF and ESI dues with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and cost to each of the complainants.
2. The OP No.1 & 2 in spite of valid notices neither filed counter nor participated in these proceedings in any manner. The OP No.4 though appeared through its A/R also did not prefer to file counter.
3. The OP No.3 only filed counter contending that M/s. Sumeet Security Service having EPF A/c. No. OR/6025 has deposited some contributions against the EPF a/cs of the complainants in the year, 2012-13 & 2013-14 but not after that and basing upon the complaint received from the Collector, Koraput, an enquiry u/s.7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 has already been initiated by OP.3 against M/s. Sumeet Security Service, Bhubaneswar, the employer. It is further contended that the employer has been asked to produce all relevant documents for assessment of dues and on completion of enquiry and assessment of dues, necessary action by OP.3 will be taken for recovery of the statutory defaulted dues. It is also contended that as the OP.3 has taken necessary steps for extension of benefits to the complainant, there is no deficiency in service on its part and hence prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.
4. The complainants as well as OP.3 have filed certain documents in support of their cases. Heard from the A/R for the complainants and A/R for OP.3 and perused the materials available on record.
5. In these cases OP No.1 has engaged the complainants as per agreement to provide service of Programme Assistants of Social Security of the district since 09/2011 under the direct supervision of DSWO, Koraput. It was ascertained that an amount of Rs.10, 49,877.26 was placed with OP.1 towards EPF & ESI by the DSWO, Koraput during the period 09/2011 to 07/2014. As the OP.1 did not deposit the required amount in the EPF & ESI accounts of the complainant, the Collector, Koraput directed the firm to deposit EPF & ESI dues of the complainant in their respective accounts but the OP.1 has not complied with the order.
6. Further for non deposit of complete subscriptions, as per complaint of the Collector, Koraput, the OP.3 has initiated an enquiry u/s.7A of EPF & MP Act, 1952 and the enquiry is yet to be completed. The OP.1 was also asked by DSWO, Koraput to renew the agreement vide Letter No.2303 dt.22.10.2014 and No.2713 dt.08.12.2014 and requested several times over phone but the OP.1 did not turn up. In the above circumstances, the complainants have left their jobs. It is also seen that when the complainants wanted to withdraw benefits from the EPF account, they were debarred to withdraw money since there was no amount deposited in their accounts. They have also been denied services by ESI authorities since their services are not hired for any consideration.
7. In the above circumstances, it was ascertained that the complainants have served under OP.1 from 09/2011 to 07/2014 but their EPF & ESI subscriptions of both the shares have not been deposited with respective authorities though the employer’s share has been paid to OP.1 by DSWO, Koraput. Hence the complainants are entitled to get their EPF & ESI dues from the respective authorities as they left their jobs and the OP.1 is to deposit required amount against the accounts of the complainants with the said authorities so as to enabling them for getting the benefits in full.
8. It is found from the record that the Collector, Koraput has intimated the DLO, Koraput to initiate legal action against OP.1. Similarly, the OP.3 has initiated enquiry u/s.7A of EPF & MP Act. Both the results are yet to come. In the above premises, the OP.3 is to be directed to release the EPF dues accumulated with them in favour of the complainant. The OP.3 is to be further directed to complete the enquiry and realise the pending subscriptions from OP.1 as soon as possible. In these cases, the OP.1 did not participate and we have lost opportunity to know anything from him. For counter signature of the Form-19 to get EPF benefits, it will be very difficult on the part of the complainants to search out the OP No.1. Hence the complainants are to be directed to get their Form-19 signed by the DSWO, Koraput under whose supervision, the complainants were working. The DSWO is to countersign the F.19 of the complainants after due verification of record.
9. Hence ordered that, the complaint petitions are allowed in part and (1) the OP No.3 is directed to release the EPF dues in favour of the complainants available in their accounts. (2) The complainants are directed to get the Form-19 countersigned by DSWO and send the same to OP.3 for release of EPF dues. (3) The OP No.2 (DSWO, Koraput) is also directed to countersign the F-19 of the complainant on being submitted by them, in absence of OP.1. The above directions are to be carried out by the parties within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. (4) It is further directed that after completion of enquiry, if any amount comes to the accounts of the complaints, the same may be released in favour of the complainants by OP.3.
(to dict.)
