DATE OF FILING-8.8.13
DATE OF DISPOSAL-4.6.14
O R D E R
Miss S.L.Pattnaik,President
The case of the complainant is that he was working as a Wire-boy under Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.3 is the industrial P.F.agencies in which the P.F.deductions from his salaries have been deposited. The above deduction amount has alleged to have been transferred to the Opposite Party No.1 who is the authorities to disburse the P.F.deductions to the employees concerned. He was superannuated from his service on 1.6.2009 and his employee code number was T.N.1122 . The complainant for the marriage of his daughter wanted to withdraw the P.F.accumulation from his P.F.Account, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay the amount. It is also stated that the Opposite Party No.2 submitted the claim application in Form No.19 vide No.CPM/PF/F-19/1/2013/79 dt.1.1.2013, still the Opposite Party No.1 did not release payment. When all his efforts in getting his legitimate claim of P.F.accumulation bore no fruit, he files this consumer complaint praying therein for release of P.F.accumulation of Rs.3,20,075/- together with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for suffering harassment, mental agony and loss due to deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties.
2- The Opposite Party No.1 entered its appearance through learned counsel and filed written version wherein it is stated that consequent upon cancellation of exemption of the establishment dt.1.4.2009, the EPF Trust of the establishment conceded to transfer the past accumulations on 1.4.2012. The complainant has superannuated from his service on 1.6.2009 and he was not prevented to receive his P.F.dues from the EPF Trust of his establishment and he has receiving monthly pension from 3.12.2009. It is stated that the complainant has deliberately tried to keep the P.F.accumulation with the O.P.No.1 to get attractive rate of interest. It is further stated that after transfer of past accumulation, the Opposite Party No.1 has to observe certain formalities in accordance with the provisions laid down under E.P.F.scheme,1952 as well as with the Central Board. The letter of confirmation was sent to Central Board on 24.5.2013. Apart from transfer of funds the establishment is under obligation to furnish the members particulars in complete form to update the members profile. Under such circumstances, it can not be said that there is delay in settlement of claim. However, it is clarified that the complainant is required to prefer fresh claim in prescribed form duly attested by his ex-employer for settlement of his claim.
The Opposite Party No.2 in its written version has stated that the application dt.31.12.12 of the complainant for withdrawal of his P.F. was forwarded to the Opposite Party No.1 on 1.1.2013. It is the liability of the Opposite Party No.1 to release P.F dues of the complainant. It is, therefore, contended that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the case.
The Opposite Party No.3 stated that the complainant has never approached for P.F.dues with them . It is also stated that by the time of his superannuation all the P.F.contributions were already transferred in favour of Opposite Party No.1 for which Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay all his P.F.dues. It is further stated that since there is no claim against them, there should be no case against the Opposite Party No.3 and prayed for dismissal against them.
3- The complainant in support of his case has filed a number of documents which are marked Annexure 1 to 5 respectively and placed on record. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties preferred not to file any document. We have gone through the case in detailed and heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. We have also perused the documents filed by the complainant as well as the written notes of arguments filed by the respective parties. It is not disputed that the complainant was working under Opposite Party No.2 and superannuated from his service on 1.6.2009. During his service his Provident Fund deductions were deposited with the Opposite Party No.3 who was authorized to P.F. deductions from Opposite Party No.2 and to pay the P.F. accumulation with interest as applicable to ;the employees concerned on their retirement.
4- There was cancellation of exemption/authorization of Opposite Party No.3 to receive P.F. deductions from the employees of the establishment on 1.4.2009. So the E.P.F.trust of the establishment of Opposite Party No.2 conceded to transfer the past accumulation of the employees on 1.4.2012. The complainant was provided with a code number of his E.P.F.account by Opposite Party No.1 i.e. OR/2/09803 which was not disclosed by the complainant before us. But the same has been ascertained on perusal the document in Annexure-2 filed before us. It is the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 is that after transfer of past accumulations in favour of Central Board, they have to undertake all scrutiny and verification measure to ensure for payment of P.F.accumulation with accuracy and taking into consideration the provisions of law. In the process there was delay in settlement of claim and the letter of confirmation was sent to its head office on 24.5.2013. Therefore, before 24.5.2013 it was too difficult on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 to settle claim application . However, the Opposite Party No.1 has not made any delay in settlement of monthly pension which was made on 3.12.2009.
5- From the above facts, it is beyond doubt that there is no latches on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to settle the claim of the complainant, rather the Opposite Party No.1 has promptly scrutinized all the past accumulations of the employees of Opposite Party No.2 and now ready for settlement of the claim of the complainant subject to receipt of fresh application in requisite forms duly routed through the employer of the complainant. On such admitted facts, we are of the opinion that the complainant is to apply for P.F.dues afresh in prescribed form duly attested by the Opposite Party No.2.
6- In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the case of the complainant with a direction to the complainant to apply afresh for in prescribed form duly attested by the employer for getting his P.F accumulation dues. The Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to make attestation of the application as applied by the complainant without delay. At the same time the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to release the payment of P.F.accumulations of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of application form from the complainant. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant any compensation or cost of litigation in favour of the complainant. The case is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 4th day of June,2014
I AGREE I AGREE PRESIDENT
(Dr.N.Tuna Sahu,Member) (Mrs.Minati Pradhan,Member) ( Miss S .L.Pattnaik)
