DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.142/18
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Agrawal
C-84, Airport Apartments,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018. …Complainant
Versus
Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Labour
Shram Shakti Bhawan
Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
M/s Airport Authority of India
Through its Chairman
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan
Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi-110003.
Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Orgnisation
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
14, Bhikaiji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Oficer Delhi (North)
Bhvishya Nidhi Bhawan
Plot No. 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area
New Delhi-110052. …Opposite Parties
Coram
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
Date of Institution 18.05.2018
Date of Order 20.06.2022
ORDER
Member Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award directing (a) the OPs jointly and severally to pay the sum of Rs.1, 07,495/- alongwith interest @12 per cent p.a. till its realisation (b) a sum of Rs.1, 00,000/- towards compensation for the harassment, mental agony and humiliation (c) cost of legal proceeding etc.
It may be apt to mention here that the instant case was being contested in District Consumer Dispute Redressal New Delhi. It was objected on the premise that the territorial jurisdiction of the complaint falls in DCDRC-II South-I. Accordingly, case was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to file in appropriate Commission. However, some record of the case was received as recently as on 5.5.2022. However, the case is being contested here since May 2018.
Brief facts of the complaint are as under -
The complainant on joining the service of Airport s Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as OP-2) became member of the EPF (Employees Provident Fund) Trust of OP-2. The EPF scheme is framed under Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952. The employer has to maintain provident fund account of every employee and credit the subscription amount of the employee and its share of equal amount. As per para 72 (7) of EPF scheme The claim complete in all respects is to be submitted along with the requisite documents shall be settled and benefit amount to be paid to the beneficiaries within 30 days from the date of its receipts by the Commissioner in case the Commission fails without sufficient cause to settle a claim within 30 days, the Commissioner shall be liable to pay for the delay and penal interest @ 12% p.a. . The OP introduced a voluntary Retirement scheme known as VRS – 2009. The Complainant accepted the option under VRS-2009 and retired on 31.7.2009. The complainant applied to OP-2 and its EPF Trust vide his applications dated 10.6.2014. The OP-2 remitted Rs.27,06,107/- only on 15.10.2014 against the total dues of complainant i.e. Rs.33,61,172/- Since the OP s EPF Trust failed to settle and make the payment within statutory period, hence it is liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. It is also averred that OP-2 has been granted authority under the provision of EPF&MP Act 1952. The complainant wrote letter to OP-2 and Regional Provident Fund Commission (hereinafter referred to as OP-4) was also informed about the short payment vide letter dated 29.6.2015. These letters are exhibited as Annexure L & M respectively. The complainant again received a payment of 6,01,790/- out of remaining Rs.7,18,602/- on 6.8.2015, after direction from OP-4 vide its letter dated 25.5.2015. The complainant again sent a letter to Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma – Asstt. PF Commissioner (Exe) an officer of OP-3 & 4. In return, the OP-4 responding to the above letter, wrote to OP-2 with copy to Enforcement Officer to take up the issue with OP-2 to get the issue settled and report thereof. All these efforts fell on deaf ears of the officials of OP-2. It is reported by the complainant stating that he had been paid @ 8.25 p.a. for the 2014-15 as against @ 9.25 p.a. paid to the rest of the subscribers scheme of OP-2 including Shri S.K. Chatuvedi. The scheme of EPF of OP-2 is being regulated and controlled by OP-3 & 4. It is also averred that an amount of Rs.1,07,495/- is still due from the OP-2 despite directions from OP-3 & 4 and statutory provisions to this effect.
OP-2 on the other hand, asserted that when the complainant got retired on 31.7.2009 and continued member of EPF even after retirement hence, the averment of complainant for non-settlement of PF is misleading. The complainant made application to EPF Trust on 10.6.2014. This fact confirms that the complainant wilfully continued to be member of the EPF Trust to reap the benefits available under the scheme. It is also asserted by the OP-2 that the PF A/c ceases to operate after 3 years of retirement which is in accordance with law. Rather, OP-2 had made over-payment of interest for the period beyond 3 years of retirement. It is also stated that the payment chart was submitted by complainant in one para of the complaint reveals the fact that there had been payment of interest beyond 3 years of the retirement. It is also noted that the rate of interest in the instant case had been charged higher than eligible rate of interest. The OP-3 & 4 had also confirmed that payment had been made by OP-2 to the complainant.
OP-3 & 4 also filed its reply and stated that OP-2 is an establishment covered under provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and has been allotted code bearing No. DL/36478 for the purpose reported compliance of the provisions of EPF & MP Act, 1952 to OP-3 & 4. The OP-2 also maintains its own in-house PF Trust and is complying as an exempted establishment as per Section 17(2) of EPF & MP Act 1952. OP-3 & OP-4 is only maintaining the PF records of all its employees of OP-2. It has been stated that the contributions of the employees of OP-2 towards the PF Trust are deposited by OP-2 in its in-house Trust managed by Board of Trustees. It was also asserted by OP-3 & 4 that the complainant could have applied for settlement of his PF account on taking Voluntary Retirement Scheme but he failed to do so and has voluntarily retained his PF with OP-2 without appreciating para 60(6) and 72(6) of EPF Scheme 1952. The complainant also filed his grievances with RPFC – Delhi North raising the following issues -
- Since the PF contributions on wage revision arrears were credited in his account in the month of July 2011 (paid in August 2011) and as per provision of para 60(6) of the said scheme should have been made effective from August 2011 and account should be made inoperative w.e.f July 2014.
- He was not supplied annual PF statement for the period from 2009-10 to July 2014.
- He applied for his final settlement of PF Account vide his application dated 10.6.2014 but his claim was settled on 15.10.2014. Hence he is entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. for the delayed period.
The OP-3 & 4 examined the above said matter and observed from PF statement given by the establishment for period 2008-09 to 2014-15 while settling the claim of the member, the Board of Trustees (BOT) have granted interest upto 34 years on PF accumulations from the date of his retirement July 2009 and interest upto 3 years on PF contributions on pay revision arrears received by BOT in Aug. 2011. The OP-3 & 4 further stated that the para 72 (6) & 60(6) of EPF Scheme 1952 and clarification issued by Head Office EPFO vide its circular dated 11.10.12, the OP-2 was advised to release the residual interest. The letter is marked as annexure K with the documents filed by complainant.
It is submitted that OP-2 s Trust further released a sum of Rs.6,01,790/- vide RTGS on 6.8.2015 towards residual interest treating the account as operative and crediting interest upto July 2015 as per provision under para 60 of EPF Scheme. It is further submitted that OP-2 s Trust released a sum of Rs.20,993/- vide NEFT dated 20.5.2016 towards differential amount of interest upto April 2016.
All the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavit. Written statements on behalf of OPs-2, 3 & 4 are on record and so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
The OPs also raised objection on this fact that the complainant does not fall under the category of Consumer as defined in CP Act. The Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi decided on 14.12.1999 clearly held that the members of EPF Scheme 1952 are Consumers under Section 2(1)(d) and Scheme was a service under section 1(o) of the CP Act. Hence the objection of the OPs is not sustainable. The OP-3 & 4 also filed application and raised objections on the territorial jurisdiction being located in the jurisdiction of other Consumer Commission as office premises of one of the Opposite Party falls under the jurisdiction of this Commission. The same is also found unsustainable.
This Commission has gone into entire gamut of issues placed on record and considerable thought was given to the arguments. It would be seen from the reply and written submissions of the OP-3 & 4 that OP-2 was advised time and again to examine the complaint as clarification issued by EPFO circular dated 11.10.2012 and letter issued by the Establishment of OP-3 & 4 dated 25.5.2015 advising the OP-2 to take necessary action for releasing the residual interest. The OP-2 accordingly released Rs.6,01,790/- to the complainant. Further a sum of Rs.20,993/- was released on 20.5.2016. It was also mentioned by OP-3 & 4 that this amount is not legally due to the complainant as per provisions under para 60 of said scheme of 1952. The Gazette Notification to this effect was issued on 15.3.2007 which provides for payment of last interest rate of broken currency period in case the rate of interest is not declared by Govt. of India, and also settlement under this Section is final. The OP-3 & 4 further examined the contention of complainant under section 72 (7) of EPF Scheme and informed the complainant that upto date interest has already been paid and copies of PF statement were also supplied to him as made available by OP-2 to them. In view of above said Gazette Notification, the higher interest cannot be invoked. Since OP-3 & 4 who regulates the entire PF fund hence can be relied on these factors as elaborately mentioned above.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and legal provision of the EPF Scheme 1952, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled to higher rate of interest for the period as examined above and in view of detailed reply of the OP-3 & 4. Accordingly, complaint fails and claim is rejected.
No orders to the cost.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
