State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukhchain Singh vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 17 January, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 267 of 2016 Date of Institution : 19.09.2016 Date of Decision : 17.01.2017 Sukhchain Singh son of Shri Hari Singh, V & PO Palasour, Dhuri, District Sangrur (Punjab). ... Appellant/Complainant. Versus The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of EPFO: SCO No.4 to 7, Sector 17, Chandigarh. M/s Aman Security & Detective (Regd.), Aman Niwas, House No.3950, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh (through Mr.J.S. Tanwar). The General Manager, M/s Food Corporation of India, SCO No.34 to 38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh. .... Respondents/Opposite Parties. =================================================== Appeal No. : 268 of 2016 Date of Institution : 19.09.2016 Date of Decision : 17.01.2017 Prem Singh son of Shri Kesha Singh, VPO Samundgarh, Kandhargarh, Tehsil, Dhuri, District Sangrur (Punjab). ... Appellant/Complainant. Versus The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of EPFO: SCO No.4 to 7, Sector 17, Chandigarh. M/s Aman Security & Detective (Regd.), Aman Niwas, House No.3950, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh (through Mr.J.S.Tanwar). The General Manager, M/s Food Corporation of India, SCO No.34 to 38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh. .... Respondents/Opposite Parties. Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
Argued by:-Sh.M.G. Sharma, Authorized Representative of the appellant.
Sh.Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Sh.Anil Shukla, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT By this order, we will dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, arising out of common order dated 21.07.2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum), vide which it dismissed, consumer complaints bearing nos.578, 579 and 580 of 2015, on the ground that those are barred by limitation and also that there is nothing on record to show that for the period in question, the appellants/complainants were employees of opposite parties no.2 and 3. Appeals have been filed against order passed in consumer complaints bearing nos.579 and 580 of 2015 only.
Arguments, in both appeals were heard by this Commission on 13.01.2017. Since, the appeals have been filed against the common order dated 21.07.2016, passed in the consumer complaints, referred to above, as such, legal issues involved therein, are the same. In view of above, the contesting parties, in both the appeals, agreed that the appeals can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated judgment.
Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from appeal bearing no.267 of 2016, titled as Sukhchain Singh Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and ors. Qua the averments made by the complainant in the complaint, claiming amount lying in Employees Provident Fund (in short the EPF) account, the Forum has noted down the following facts:-
"As per the allegations of the complainant, he rendered contractual services from 1.7.1991 to 30.11.1997 through OP-2 and the beneficiary of the said services was OP-3 i.e. the Food Corporation of India. On 14.3.2015, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs for ensuring the attestation of Form 19 and 10C, but, OP-1 failed to initiate stringent action against OPs 2 & 3 to ensure that the needful is done. It is alleged that the complainant provided services through the service provider for about 7 years and had been a member of the EPF by default and being not in the category of exempted limit of wage of the employee. As such, the complainant was entitled for the refund of the accumulations of EPF and the OPs are responsible to ensure the refund of the same, but, they failed to release the amount. It is alleged that OP-2 is covered under the statutory provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 having been issued Employer Code No.12816 by EPFO and was required under the provisions of the law to receive EPF from OP-3 and further deposit the same with OP-1 towards social security of the member. It is alleged that OP-2 collected ESIC & EPF in the bills of service charges from the principal employer OP-3 and the same as per the provisions of the Act must have been deposited with OP-1 by way of appropriate statutory challans during the period 1.7.1991 to 30.11.1997 to cover the social security of the member. It is further alleged that since the complainant has served notice dated 14.3.2015 to withdraw his lawful accumulation of EPF, as such, the matter is not hit by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, the complainant, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, has prayed for refund of his EPF accumulations for the period from 1.7.1991 to 30.11.1997 with adequate compensation etc."
Upon notice, separate replies were filed by opposite parties no.1 to 3.
The defence/objection taken by opposite party no.1 was noted by the Forum as under:-
"OP-1 resisted the claim of the complainant, inter alia, taking the preliminary objections that it has been wrongly impleaded as a party. It has been alleged that the complainant has impleaded an officer only of the Employees Provident Fund Organization who is not the proper party for the adjudication of the dispute; that the instant complaint is barred by law of limitation as the complainant is raising the dispute of withdrawal of PF accumulations for the alleged period of service rendered with OPs 2 & 3 for the period from 1.7.1991 to 30.11.1997 and is claiming the withdrawal of financial benefits allegedly accrued to him during that period after more than 18 years; that the complaint filed through the alleged authorized representative is not maintainable. It is pleaded that every employee enrolled as a member under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund & MP Act, 1952 is allotted a Provident Fund Account to which the statutory contributions are credited. In the instant case, the complainant has not mentioned about his PF account number. However, it is pleaded that on receipt of the notice dated 14.3.2015, the OP vide letter dated 27.3.2015 duly informed the complainant through his alleged authorized representative that no claim has been received by the office of the OP and the liability of the OP would arise only after the receipt of the claim. However, the office of the OP issued a show cause notice for prosecution dated 24.9.2015 and also deputed the Area Enforcement Officer to verify the grievance of the complainant who, after visiting the establishment, collected the written statement vide letter dated 28.9.2015 from OP-2 to the effect that they have not received any withdrawal form from the Workman for verification. OP-1 thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint."
Before the Forum, opposite party no.2 pleaded that the complaint having been filed after 17 years of accrual of alleged benefit, was highly time barred. It was stated that for the period falling between 01.07.1991 to 30.01.1997, it had deposited share of its employees towards EPF with the competent authority. At an earlier point of time, it was alleged against opposite party no.2 that the employees share of EPF was not deposited with the competent authority. An FIR was recorded. However, after inquiry it was found to the contrary. It was stated that as per Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, it is open to opposite party no.2 not to preserve any record, beyond the period of three years, from the date of last entry made in the register. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
Opposite party no.3, with whom, as per averments made, the complainant had rendered service, also stated that it had made the payment of EPF and administrative charges of Rs.6,18,746/- to opposite party no.2, for further deposit of the same with opposite party no.1. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
The parties led evidence in support of their cases.
The Forum after noting evidence on record and arguments addressed by the parties, dismissed the complaints, on the ground that those are barred by limitation and also that there is nothing on record to show that for the period in question, the complainants were employees of opposite parties no.2 and 3.
It may be stated here that before this Commission also, nothing has been brought on record to show that finding given by the Forum to the effect that for the period in question, the appellants/complainants failed to prove that they were employees of opposite parties no.2 and 3, is not correct. It has also rightly been observed by the Forum that the complaints were filed after a period of about more than 17 years and it was not possible for the opposite parties to verify the contents of the averments made by the appellants. The position would have been different, in case, it was proved on record that the appellants were in service, as alleged by them, for the particular period, with opposite parties no.2 and 3. In the present case, the said fact is missing, on account of which, no benefit can be given to the appellants.
In view of above, it is held that no ground whatsoever, has been made out, to make interference in the order under challenge. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the appellants, are dismissed with no order as to cost.
Certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of connected appeal, referred to above.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
17.01.2017 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. :
268 of 2016 Date of Institution :
19.09.2016 Date of Decision :
17.01.2017 Prem Singh son of Shri Kesha Singh, VPO Samundgarh, Kandhargarh, Tehsil, Dhuri, District Sangrur (Punjab).
... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of EPFO: SCO No.4 to 7, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
M/s Aman Security & Detective (Regd.), Aman Niwas, House No.3950, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh (through Mr.J.S.Tanwar).
The General Manager, M/s Food Corporation of India, SCO No.34 to 38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh.
.... Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:-Sh.M.G. Sharma, Authorized Representative of the appellant.
Sh.Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Sh.Anil Shukla, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in appeal bearing no.267 of 2016, titled as Sukhchain Singh Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and ors., this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no. 267 of 2016 shall also be placed on this file.
Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no. 267 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Sd/- Sd/- (JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg.