State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balbir Singh vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 17 January, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 266 of 2016 Date of Institution : 19.09.2016 Date of Decision : 17.01.2017 Balbir Singh s/o Late Sh.Jeet Singh, VPO Katron, 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. =================================================== Appeal No. : 264 of 2016 Date of Institution : 19.09.2016 Date of Decision : 17.01.2017 Prem Kumar s/o sh.Dhulia Ram, # 157, Ward 06, Balmiki Chowk, Block 'A', 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. : 265 of 2016 Date of Institution : 19.09.2016 Date of Decision : 17.01.2017 Harbans Singh s/o Shri Babu Ram V & PO Dhandiwal, 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. =================================================== Appeal No. : 269 of 2016 Date of Institution : 19.09.2016 Date of Decision : 17.01.2017 Balbir Singh s/o Shri Maghar Singh, VPO Alal, 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 four appeals, arising out of common order dated 28.07.2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum), vide which it disposed off, consumer complaints bearing nos.475, 476, 477 and 478 of 2015.
Arguments, in all the four appeals were heard by this Commission on 13.01.2017. Since, the appeals have been filed against the common order dated 28.07.2016, 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 all the four 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.266 of 2016, titled as Balbir 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:-
"In brief, the case of the complainant is that he rendered contractual services from 01.07.1991 to 30.11.1997 through OP No.2 to M/s Food Corporation of India, OP No.3. It has further been averred that OP No.2 being the Security & Detective Agency (Regd.) was covered the statutory provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 having been issued EPF Employer Code No.12816 by OP No.1 and was required to receive the EPF from OP No.3 and to deposit the same with OP No.1 towards the social security of the Member. It has further been averred that OP No.2 collected ESIC & EPF in the bills of the service charges from the principal employer (OP No.3) and the same must have been deposited with OP No.1 by way of appropriate challans during the period from 1st July, 1991 till 30.11.1997 to cover the society security of the member. It has further been averred that the complainant forwarded the Form No.19 and 10C on 19.01.2015 through registered post to OP No.2 for the purpose of attestation and forwarding the same to OP No.1 but it failed to do so despite service of the legal notice dated 14.03.2015, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint."
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:-
"In its written statement, OP-1 took preliminary objections inter alia that it has been wrongly impleaded as a party; 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 has further been pleaded that every employee enrolled as a member under the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 is allotted a Provident Fund Account to which the statutory contributions are credited to. But in the instant case, the complainant has not mentioned his PF A/c number. It has further been pleaded that on receipt of the notice dated 14.03.2015, vide letter 27.03.2015 they informed the complainant through his authorized representative that no claim has been received. However, they have issued a show cause notice for prosecution dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure R-1/1) and also deputed Area Enforcement Officer to verify the grievance who after visiting the establishment collected the written statement vide letter dated 28.09.2015 (Annexure R-1/2) from OP No.2 to the effect that they have not received any withdrawal form from the Workman for verification and that they would after receipt of the claim forms would verify the same immediately. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made."
Before the Forum, opposite party no.2 pleaded that for the period falling between 01.07.1991 to 31.01.1997, it had deposited share of its employees towards EPF with the competent authority. At an earlier point of time, it was alleged 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 the 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, disposed of the complaints on 28.07.2016, by observing as under:-
"Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we dispose of the complaints with an option to the complainants that they can submit the requisite Form No.19 and 10 C after furnishing all the requisite informations therein especially the particular PF account number to OP No.2 and thereafter it (OP No.2) will attest and verify the same in accordance with rules and then to forward the same to OP No.1 for repayment of the PF accumulations. We have also sanguine hope that the OPs will render every help in this regard to the poor complainants."
When giving above relief to the complainants, it was rightly said that to claim the amount deposited in EPF account, an employee/complainants have recurring cause of action. It is contribution of an employee towards EPF and State Agencies, after deducting the said amount from salary, cannot take benefit of technicalities to deny relief to an employee. It was further found as a matter of fact that the complainant worked with opposite party no.2 for the period, in question, and opposite party no.2 had deposited his (complainant) contribution towards EPF with opposite party no.1. It was also noted that opposite party no.1 is ready and willing to release the due amount of EPF to the complainant(s) lying in the account, subject to furnishing of EPF account number. By observing as above, an option was given to the complainants to supply necessary particulars to opposite party no.2, including EPF account number. Opposite party no.2 was directed to verify those particulars and forward it to opposite party no.1 for necessary action.
It is contended by Authorized Representative for the appellant that the complainant is a poor illiterate person. He does not know his EPF account number. The said detail is available with opposite parties no.1 and 2 and let them verify the particulars of the complainant and release the requisite amount due to him.
During hearing of this appeal, a specific stand was taken by Counsel for opposite party no.1 that EPF account number is given by an employer to its employee. Thereafter, the account number is intimated to opposite party no.1 and all deposits are being made against that account number only. Other particulars of an employee are not being maintained by opposite party no.1. To verify above said arguments, made by Counsel for opposite party no.1, following order was passed by this Commission on 15.11.2016:-
"At the time of arguments, it transpires that at an earlier point of time, on an allegation that amount was not deposited towards EPF by the FCI and the Contractor, FIR was recorded. However, during investigation, it was proved, on record, that the said amount stood deposited.
It is stated by Sh. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate, Counsel for respondent No.1 that unless account number is provided, amount lying deposited with respondent No.1 cannot be disbursed.
Be that as it may, Counsel for respondent No.1 is directed to show us the necessary steps to be taken, when opening an account of an employee under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It be also mentioned in the affidavit, to be filed by some responsible officer, that qua the issue, in dispute, on names supplied by the Contractor (respondent No.2), how many accounts were opened and what are the details of the persons by whom accounts were opened; whether any form was obtained showing the details qua age, date of birth etc. and got signed or not from the appellant and others, when account was opened. If it is so, then, while opening the account, whether those details were added in the register or not."
In response thereto, an affidavit dated 13.01.2017, sworn by Sh.Mayank Bansal, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, at Chandigarh, was filed before this Commission. Reading of contents of the aforesaid affidavit, makes it very clear that it is mandatory for an employer to send complete particulars of its employee(s) to the EPF Department, who are entitled to become members of EPF scheme. In the said affidavit, in para no.23, it is stated as under:-
"Form 2, Form 5 and Form 10 are not available of the applicants and other employees however, there are different P.F. Account numbers allotted to similar listed employees on the basis of Form 3A/Form 6-A and challans submitted by employer. The parentage of employees are not mentioned in Form 6-A as well as challans because of that correct PF numbers is not ascertained."
It is stated that Form Nos.2, 5 and 10 of the complainants and other employees are not available. However, different PF account numbers allotted to similar listed employees on the basis of Forms 3A and 6A etc. are available. It is further stated that parentage of employees are not mentioned in Form 6-A as also the challans submitted. On account of that, their EPF numbers cannot be verified and as such, it is not possible to release their due amount, lying in the EPF account.
We are of the considered opinion that the plea taken is not justified. It is duty of opposite party no.1 to maintain regular account of an employee qua whom intimation is received from an employer. There is a provision of issuance of pass book, to the members of the EPF. As per Forms No.2, 5 and 10 attached with the Employees` Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to open an account under the said Scheme, an employer is supposed to fill up those Forms and send it to opposite party no.1, to open an account. Perusal of above Forms makes it very clear that particulars of an employee, showing his name, father's name, date of birth, date of joining fund etc., needs to be mentioned, when EPF account is opened. It is admitted on the part of opposite party no.1 that many account particulars are available with it. However, Forms showing particulars of the applicants and other employees are not available. Such a plea cannot be accepted, it is responsibility of the opposite party no.1 to maintain proper accounts.
In view of noting the contents of affidavit aforesaid and provisions of Employees` Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, order passed by the Forum is modified to the extent that the complainant(s) will furnish complete details/particulars including service period to opposite parties no.1 and 2. Both (opposite parties no.1 and 2) will verify the same from their record and if it is proved that the complainants were the members of the fund at the relevant time, as said by them, the requisite due amount be released to them. Needful shall be done within three months, from the date of passing of this order. If opposite parties no.1 and 2 failed to do the needful, amount claimed by the appellants will be returned with interest @10% p.a. With these directions, all the appeals stand disposed of.
Certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of connected appeals, 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. :
264 of 2016 Date of Institution :
19.09.2016 Date of Decision :
17.01.2017 Prem Kumar s/o Sh.Dhulia Ram, # 157, Ward 06, Balmiki Chowk, Block 'A', 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 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.266 of 2016, titled as Balbir Singh Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and ors. this appeal has been disposed of.
Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no. 266 of 2016 shall also be placed on this file.
Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no. 266 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. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 265 of 2016 Date of Institution : 19.09.2016 Date of Decision : 17.01.2017
Harbans Singh s/o Shri Babu Ram V & PO Dhandiwal, 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.
Appeal 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.266 of 2016, titled as Balbir Singh Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and ors. this appeal has been disposed of.
Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no. 266 of 2016 shall also be placed on this file.
Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no. 266 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. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 269 of 2016 Date of Institution : 19.09.2016 Date of Decision : 17.01.2017
Balbir Singh s/o Shri Maghar Singh, VPO Alal, 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.
Appeal 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.266 of 2016, titled as Balbir Singh Vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and ors. this appeal has been disposed of.
Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no. 266 of 2016 shall also be placed on this file.
Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no. 266 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.