- Sri Mrinmoy Panja,
59, Bally, Durgapur Main Road,
Panchanantola, P.O. Bally,
Dist. Howrah, Pin – 711205, P.S. Bally, representing 16
Employees, as appearing hereinafter of employer
M/s Harchand Rai Sreeram,
74, Jamunalal Bajaj St. Ganesh Bhagat Katra,
2nd Floor, Kolkata-7, P.S. Burrabazar. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- The Sub Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, West Benagal,
44, Park Street, Kolkata-16,
P.S. Park Street. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 24 Dated 26-09-2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant has an employee under the establishment viz. M/s Harchand Rai Sreeram having its PF A/C No.WB / 15965 / 05 under the account group Cal-21/06. Complainant has stated that after deducting the amount from the salary by the employer the same used to deposit to o.p.
Complainant further stated that the said company has been closed in March 2001 and the amount deducted from October 1999 to March 2001 has been deposited to o.p.,
Complainant further stated that they have approached the o.p. through a letter dt.11.2.11 which has acknowledged by o.p. on 14.2.11 wherein complainant has requested the o.p. to kindly process his application for monthly pension at earliest. But nothing has yet been done by o.p.
In view of the above, complainant filed the instant complaint petition before this Forum with the prayer directing the o.p. to arrange payment of claim on account of family pension under the provision of he EPF and Misc. Provision Act, 1952.
O.p. has appeared in the instant case by filing w/v and contested the case. It appears from BNA filed by o.p. vide paragraph 19 that o.p. stated that the instant petition of complaint cannot be adjudicated under the purview of the C.P. Act.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of the parties and upon careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record we find that the instant complaint petition cannot be entertained before this Forum since the matter relates the dispute between the master servant relationship or in other words, it is absolutely a service dispute matter and the complainant cannot be termed as consumer as well as his employer cannot be called as service provider.
C.P. Act has no provision to entertain any dispute arising out of the service matter and also the dispute between the master servant relationships.
Surprising enough that the complainant did not make a party to his employer.
In view of the above discussions, we hold that complainant has failed to substantiate his case and as such, he is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
