State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs M/S Gill Contractors on 6 October, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 839 of 2014
Date of institution: 30.6.2014
Date of Decision :15.10.2015
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, SCO No. 4-7, Sector-17D,
Chandigarh.
Appellant/Op No.3
Versus
1. M/s Gill Contractors, House No. 1633, Sector-70, SAS Nagar,
Mohali (Punjab), through its authorized representative.
2. Semi Conductor Laboratory, Government of India, Department
Space, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its Director.
Respondents No.1&2/OPs No.1&2
3. Nandan son of Sh. Gopi Ram, resident of C/o Sh. Darshan Singh,
VPO Sohna, District Mohali, Punjab.
Respondent No.3/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated 29.4.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
and others detailed below in first para of the appeal.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh. M.K. Malhotra, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
This order will dispose of 41 appeals, particulars of which are as under:-
Sr. No. Appeal No. Party Names Consumer Date of (Appellant) (Respondents) ComplaintDecision of No. the complaints
1. F.A. No. 839 of The M/s Gill CC No. 23 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 2
2. F.A. No. 840 of The M/s Gill CC No. 25 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
3. F.A. No. 841 of The M/s Gill CC No. 12 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
4. F.A. No. 842 of The M/s Gill CC No. 22 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
5. F.A. No. 843 of The M/s Gill CC No. 26 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
6. F.A. No. 844 of The M/s Gill CC No. 27 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
7. F.A. No. 845 of The M/s Gill CC No. 28 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
8. F.A. No. 846 of The M/s Gill CC No. 29 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
9. F.A. No. 847 of The M/s Gill CC No. 24 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
10. F.A. No. 848 of The M/s Gill CC No. 31 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
11. F.A. No. 849 of The M/s Gill CC No. 32 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
12. F.A. No. 850 of The M/s Gill CC No. 33 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
13. F.A. No. 851 of The M/s Gill CC No. 34 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
14. F.A. No. 852 of The M/s Gill CC No. 27 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
15. F.A. No. 853 of The M/s Gill CC No. 36 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
16. F.A. No. 854 of The M/s Gill CC No. 37 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
17. F.A. No. 855 of The M/s Gill CC No. 83 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
18. F.A. No. 856 of The M/s Gill CC No. 39 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
19. F.A. No. 857 of The M/s Gill CC No. 13 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
20. F.A. No. 858 of The M/s Gill CC No. 14 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
21. F.A. No. 859 of The M/s Gill CC No. 15 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
22. F.A. No. 860 of The M/s Gill CC No. 16 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 3
23. F.A. No. 861 of The M/s Gill CC No. 11 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
24. F.A. No. 862 of The M/s Gill CC No. 17 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
25. F.A. No. 863 of The M/s Gill CC No. 18 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
26. F.A. No. 864 of The M/s Gill CC No. 19 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
27. F.A. No. 865 of The M/s Gill CC No. 20 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
28. F.A. No. 866 of The M/s Gill CC No. 21 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
29. F.A. No. 867 of The M/s Gill CC No. 30 29.4.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
30. F.A. No. 1040 of The M/s Gill CC No. 540 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2013 Others
31. F.A. No. 1041 of The M/s Gill CC No. 537 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2013 Others
32. F.A. No. 1042 of The M/s Gill CC No. 533 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2013 Others
33. F.A. No. 1043 of The M/s Gill CC No. 88 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2014 Others
34. F.A. No. 1044 of The M/s Gill CC No. 535 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2013 Others
35. F.A. No. 1045 of The M/s Gill CC No. 539 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2013 Others
36. F.A. No. 1046 of The M/s Gill CC No. 536 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2013 Others
37. F.A. No. 1047 of The M/s Gill CC No. 538 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2013 Others
38. F.A. No. 1048 of The M/s Gill CC No. 542 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2013 Others
39. F.A. No. 1049 of The M/s Gill CC No. 541 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2013 Others
40. F.A. No. 1050 of The M/s Gill CC No. 534 6.6.2014 2014 R.P.F.C. Contractors & of 2013 Others
41. F.A. No. 958 of M/s Gill Shri Pal Singh CC No. 11 29.4.2014 2014 Contractors & Others of 2014 & Others First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 4 These appeals have been filed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-appellant/OP No. 3 and First Appeal No. 958 of 2014 filed by M/s Gill Contractors-appellant/OP No. 1; against the orders dated 29.4.2014 and 6.6.2014, vide which the complaints filed by the complainants were allowed with a direction to the Ops to provide to the complainants account statements showing deposit of PF deductions w.e.f. 1.2.2009 upto date and in case they were still in service or till the date they remained in service. OP No. 1 was further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lac to each of the complainant. OPs were further directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 21,000/- to each of the complainant as cost of the litigation and OP No. 3 will ensure taking of appropriate legal action against Op Nos. 1 & 2 under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(in short 'PF Act, 1952).
2. Above mentioned complaints were filed by the complainants against the Ops on the averments that they were working with Op No. 2 who had awarded the contract to Op No. 1 for supply of unskilled, skilled and supervisory personnel for the period of 2 years w.e.f. 1.2.2009 to 1.2011, which was further extended upto 31.4.2011. The wages were paid to the complainant by OP No. 1 on monthly basis after deducting statutory deduction of Provident Fund @ 13.61%, which was supposed to be deposited with OP No. 3 alongwith the matching contribution from employer and OP No. 1 was to get its reimbursement from Op No. 2 on depositing a copy of the challan and attendance register and payment of wages register whereas Op No. 3 was to maintain the accounts of the complainants. First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 5 In the month of April, 2011, the contract with OP No. 1 had expired. The complainants approached OP No. 1 to get the account statement for their Provident Funds. OP No. 1 handed over the photographs of the receipts for the period March, 2009 to February, 2010. The complainant verified the fact and came to know that the Provident Fund Contribution regularly paid to the contractor was not deposited with Op No. 3 for the period 1.2.2009 to 30.4.2011. This fact was brought to the notice of OP No. 2, who immediately wrote a letter to Op No. 3. Complainants also wrote a letters to Op No. 3. After writing number of letters, no reply was received from Op No. 3. Then application under Right to Information Act was filed and then Op No. 3 sent an intimation that intimation was sent to the complainants but it was received back undelivered, whereas no information was supplied to the complainants. Op No. 3 had also violated the provisions of the Act of 1952 and The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952(for short P.F. Scheme, 1952). Non deposit of the amount by OP Nos. 1 & 2 amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 did not comply with the provisions of the Act and Scheme, which took to the complainants to financial loss, mental and physical harassment. Hence, the complaints with a direction to the Ops to provide the account statement for the period 1.2.2009 to 30.4.2011 alongwith interest @ 18%, pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac and cost of litigation as Rs. 21,000/-.
3. The complaints were contested by the Ops. Op No. 1 in its written statement took the preliminary objections that the complaint filed was not maintainable legally as the complainants did not fall First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 6 within the definition of the consumer; complainant had no locus-standi to file the complaint. OP No. 1 was contractor and OP No. 2 was to prepare the salary for the complainants as per attendance register and deduct Employee's contribution towards provident fund, which was regularly deposited w.e.f. 1.3.2008 to February, 2012. The complaints were made on indefinite and uncertain facts, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that score; the complainants had not approached the Hon'ble Forum with clean hands and that OP No. 1 had no objection for the release of the provident fund to the complainants. On merits, it was again reiterated that OP No. 1 had deposited his contribution towards employee's Provident Fund to OP No. 3. Therefore, OP No. 1 had not violated any provisions of the Act and scheme and that complaints were without merit and these be dismissed.
4. OP No. 2 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that the complainants did not come within the definition of consumers qua this Op. OP No. 2 had awarded the contract to OP No. 1 for supply of skilled and unskilled personnel on contract basis for the period 1.2.2009 to 31.1.2011, which was further extended upto 30.4.2011. The wages to the complainants were to be paid by OP No. 1 on monthly basis after deducting statutory EPF alongwith matching contribution of employer and it was required to be deposited with Op No. 3, therefore, it was the sole responsibility of OP No. 1 to deduct the amount of EPF contributions, deducted from the wages of the complainants every month with Op No. 3. Moreover, the payment and deposit of EPF contributions cannot be considered to be rendering of First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 7 any service under the Act; the complaints were not maintainable as there was no unfair trade practice and agreement was executed between Op Nos. 1 & 2 and as per the terms and conditions of the said Contract, it was the sole responsibility/liability of OP No. 1 to observe all the statutory requirements towards Provident Fund, ESI etc.; the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. In case there was non-compliance of the provisions of the Act and Scheme then procedure has been given under the Act and the Scheme, accordingly, Consumer Fora did not have the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as proceedings under Section 7A of the Act were initiated and are still pending. Non-deposit of EPF contributions, deducted from the wages of the complainants, attracted the provisions under the Indian Penal Code, therefore, Hon'ble Forum was not competent to try and adjudicate the said complaints; the complaints were hopelessly time barred as the contract between OP Nos. 1 & 2 had expired on 30.4.2011. complainants had come to know at that time the status of their Provident Fund but complaints were filed after a gap of more than 2 years whereas Section 24A provides the limitation period for two years from the date of cause of action and that the complaints were false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainants, therefore, complaints were liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it was again reiterated that the Consumer Fora did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There was no cause of action to the complainants to file the complaints against Op No. 2 as per Clause 17 of the terms and conditions, according to it the First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 8 entire responsibility to deduct the EPF, send it same to Op No. 3 alongwith matching contribution to OP No. 3 was of OP No. 1. Op No. 1 submitted the bills to OP No. 2 and got the reimbursement. In case the false challans were submitted by OP No. 1, then it was liability of Op No. 1 and not of OP No. 2. Therefore, there was no merit in the complaint against Op No. 2, the same be dismissed.
5. OP No. 3 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that the complaints were not maintainable against this Op; OP No. 1 had not deposited the provident fund contribution of the employees and submitted the complete returns on 4.2.2014 in form No. 3A/6A for the year 2008-09 to 2011-12 on the basis of that OP No. 3 had reconciled the accounts and immediately thereafter, the amount was credited in the account of the account holders and that there was no delay or deficiency on the part of this OP, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable against this Op. On merits, it was submitted that after receiving the intimation from Op No. 2 and the complainants, OP No. 3 deputed Enforcement Officer for verification. After verification, it was found that OP No. 1 had not deposited the provident fund contributions of the employees and proceedings under Section 7A of the PF Act 1952 were initiated. OP No. 2 appeared on 1-2 dates and thereafter they did not appear whereas OP No. 1 had not appeared on dates 17.5.2013, 31.5.2013, 21.6.2013, 13.9.2013, 11.10.2013, 1.11.2013 and 29.11.2013. During the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act, OP No. 1 had produced photocopies of challans for the period 2/2009 to 4/2011. OP No. 3 got checked PF Accounts and it was found that the challans were not credited in the First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 9 accounts of OP No. 3. This fact was brought to the notice of Op No. 1, however, OP No. 1 again claimed that PF amount was deposited through challans of State Bank of India, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. Thereafter, OP No. 3 requested SBI, Main Branch, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh to give the credit report in respect of challans submitted by OP No. 1 vide letter dated 30.12.2013. The SBI vide their letter dated 4.1.2014 informed OP No. 3 that the challans were not received with their Branch from where its stood proved that OP No. 1 had forged and fabricated the challans with malafide intention and accordingly, OP No. 3 directed a letter to E.O. to register an FIR against OP No. 1. The challan statement form 6A for the period 2009- 10 dated 30.7.2010 was not submitted by OP No. 1 as per the office record of OP No. 3. Even OP No. 1 had admitted that they had not submitted statement 3A/6A for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11, whereas proceedings under Section 7A of the Act were still pending. The information under RTI was supplied to the complainant within time. OP No. 1 had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,75,000/- on various dates during the proceeding of Section 7A, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was credited on 12.7.2012, Rs. 2 lacs on 26.12.2012, Rs. 5 lacs on 7.5.2013, Rs. 1,25,000/- on 16.5.2013 and Rs. 1 lac on 3.2.2014 and revised returns 3A/6A for the year 2008-09 to 2010-11 was submitted. On the basis of these returns, OP No. 3 had reconciled the accounts. Annual Provident Fund Account statements were prepared, therefore, there was no delay or deficiency in services on the part of OP No. 3. Complaints were without merit and these be dismissed. First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 10
6. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence. Evidence has been taken from Consumer Complaint No. 23 of 2014 "Nandan versus M/s Gill Contractors & Others". Similar is the evidence in other complaints.
7. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1, letter dt. 11.5.11 Ex. C-1, letter Ex. C-2, letter with signatures Ex. C-3, letter Ex. C-4, letter Ex. C-5, letter Ex. C-6, letter of EPF Deptt. Exs. C-7, 8. On the other hand, OP No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Malkit Singh Ex. Op-1/1, letter dt. 4.2.14 Ex. Op-1, letter dt. 4.2.14 Ex. Op-2, letter dt. 4.2.14 Ex. Op-3, letter dt. 4.2.14 Ex. Op-4. OP No. 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajendra Saksena, Head, P&GA Ex. Op- 2/A, letter Ex. Op-2/1, letter Ex. Op-2/2, letter Ex. Op-2/3, letter of EPF Deptt. Ex. OP-2/4, letter of RPF Ex. Op-2/5, letter Ex. Op-2/6. Op No. 3 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Subash Arora Ex. Op-3/A, letter Ex. Op-3/1, letter of EPF Ex. Op-3/2, letter of EPF Ex. Op-3/4, letter dt. 30.12.2013 Ex. Op-3/5, letter dt. 4.1.2014 Ex. Op- 3/6, letter dt. 7.1.14 Ex. Op-3/7, letter of Gill Contractors Ex. Op-3/8, letter RPF Ex. Op-3/9, EPF challan Ex. Op-3/10.
8. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written replies filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaints were allowed as referred above.
9. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP No. 3 has filed these appeals whereas one Appeal was filed by appellant-OP No.1 - Gill Contractors. First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 11 FIRST APPEAL NO. 839 OF 2014 & others filed by appellant/OP No. 3 referred above.
10. In all these appeals, the counsel for the appellant/OP No. 3 Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate has argued that the order passed by the District Forum is without jurisdiction, against the law and facts. On the basis of complaints filed by complainants/OP No. 2, this appellant/OP No. 3 had summoned OP Nos. 1 & 2 and had initiated the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act, which are yet to be finalized, therefore, the proceedings under this Act are not maintainable.
11. No doubt that proceedings under Section 7A of the Act have been initiated by the Department itself, but complainant in case is aggrieved of the fact that the amount of provident fund was not deposited by the Contractor/employer and no action was taken by OP No. 3, therefore, complainant has a right to file a consumer complaint because under Section 3 of the Act, additional remedy has been provided. On this point, there is a judgment reported in 1994(1) CPC 562 "Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Faridabad versus Shiv Kumar Joshi and Babu Ram Joshi" wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana that services rendered by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to its subscribers are identical to that of bankers are covered under the Act. On the same lines is the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in 2003(3) CLT 46 "Captain C.P. Gupta versus Indian Airlines Provident Fund Trust through its Principal Officer and others" wherein it was observed that the funds were established for First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 12 the welfare of the employees. Employer is also getting benefit of deduction in Income Tax on the contribution made by it to the fund and also the expenses incurred for maintaining the fund, therefore, there is a consideration and complainant employee is a consumer. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "C.C. Chambers Co-op Hsg. Society Limited Vs D.C. Bank Ltd.", 2004 AIR (SC)184 observed in Para-7(relevant portion) as follows:-
"The Fora made available under the Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and the jurisdiction of the conventional Courts over such matters as are now cognizable under the Act has not been taken away. It was further held by the Hon'ble National Commission in its recent judgment "Dr. J.L. Chaudhary versus Ashok Thakkar", 2013(4) CPR 534 (NC)(relevant part). In that case ".....Section 3 provides additional remedy to consumers besides those that may be available under other laws. Consumer Fora have also been admitting and deciding cases of this nature where consumers have filed complaints against builders/developers on grounds of deficiency in service/unfair trade practice and as such no complex issues of law or fact are involved which cannot be decided by Consumer Fora." therefore, the matter can certainly be decided by the Consumer Fora.
12. Against these judgments, no contrary judgment was placed on the record by the counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the complainants are a consumer and in view of Section 3 of the Act, they have a right to file a consumer complaints, therefore, consumer complaints are maintainable in case fund was not deposited in time or any other deficiency in maintaining the fund. First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 13
13. It is next argued that the District Forum has failed to appreciate that proceeding undertaken by the appellant/OP No. 3 under Section 7A of the Act. Whereas OP No. 1 had filed annual returns on 26.9.2013 in Form 3A/6A for the year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and after clearance of these returns, the amount was credited in the accounts of the employees. Since the contract between the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 was for the period 1.2.2009 to 30.4.2011 and according to the agreement between the parties placed on the record as Ex. Op-2/1 and as per Condition No. 5 wherein there was a specific provision that ESI/EPF payable on behalf of the workers employed in the SCL was to be paid by the Contractor(Op No.1) and in return, he was to get it reimbursed from OP No. 2 alongwith employer's share, which shows that these workers had their PF Account numbers before the contract between OP Nos. 1 & 2 which fact has not been denied by Op No. 3. Otherwise the complainant has placed on the record one document Ex. C-2, which was return of contributions in form 3A/6A for the period March, 2009 to February, 2010, which was duly received on 30.7.2010 in the office of Op No. 3 having the seal of their office. It has not been denied by OP No. 3 that this letter does not bear the seal of the office of OP No. 3. Otherwise there are statutory bindings of OP No. 3 to maintain these accounts! Firstly, there are forms 3A/6A under the PF Scheme 1952 vide which the Employer is required to submit the statement of the entire month to the Provident Fund Commissioner and Form No. 6A gives further detail of the wages, worker's contribution, employer's contribution etc.. Rule 32A First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 14 of the PF Scheme 1952 deals with the 'recovery of damages for default in payment of any contribution'. Rule 36 puts the duty of every Employer to send to the Commissioner, within 15 days of the commencement of this scheme, a consolidated return in such form as the Commissioner may specify, of the employees required or entitled to become members of the Fund showing the [basic wage, retaining allowance (if any) and dearness allowance including the cash value of any food concession] paid to each of such employees. [Provided that if there is no employee who is required or entitled to become a member of the Fund, the employer shall send a "NIL"
return].
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx [36-B. Duties of contractors.- Every contractor shall, within seven days of the close of every month, submit to the principal employer a statement showing the recoveries of contributions in respect of employees employed by or through him and shall also furnish to him such information as the principal employer is required to furnish under the provisions of the Scheme to the Commissioner.]
14. Further Rule 37 deals with allotment of account numbers.-- On receipt of the information referred to in paragraphs 33, 34 and 36, the Commissioner shall promptly allot an Account Number to each employee qualifying to become a member and shall communicate the Account Number to the member through the employer.
15. Rule 38 deals with mode of payment of contributions, which is as under:-
First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 15
38. Mode of payment of contributions (1) The employer shall, before paying the member his wages in respect of any period or part of period for which contributions are payable, deduct the employee's contribution from his wages which together with his own contribution as well as an administrative charge of such percentage [of the pay (basic wages, dearness allowance, retaining allowance, if any, and cash value of food concessions admissible thereon) for the time being payable to the employees other than excluded employee and in respect of which provident fund contributions are payable, as the Central Government may fix. He shall within fifteen days of the close of every month pay the same to the fund by separate bank drafts or cheques on account of contributions and administrative charge]. Provided that if the payment is made by a cheque, it should be drawn only on the local bank of the place in which deposits are made: Provided further that where there is no branch of the Reserve Bank or the [State] Bank of India at the station where the [factory or other establishment] is situated, the employer shall pay to the Fund the amount mentioned above by means of Reserve Bank of India [Governmental Drafts at par] separately on account of contributions and administrative charge.
(2) The employer shall forward to the Commissioner, within twenty-five days of the close of the month, a monthly abstract in such form as the Commissioner may specify showing the aggregate amount of recoveries made from the wages of all the First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 16 members and the aggregate amount contributed by the employer in respect of all such members for the month:
Provided that an employer shall send a Nil return, if no such recoveries have been made from the employees :
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (3) The employer shall send to the Commissioner within one month of the close of the period of currency, a consolidated annual Contribution Statement in Form 6-A, showing the total amount of recoveries made during the period of currency from the wages of each member and the total amount contributed by the employer in respect of each such member for the said period. The employer shall maintain on his record duplicate copies of the aforesaid monthly abstract and consolidated annual contribution statement for production at the time of inspection by the Inspector.
16. Rule 43 deals with submission of contribution cards to the Commissioner, which is as under:-
"43. Submission of contribution cards to the Commissioner Every employer shall within one month from the date of expiration of the period of currency of the contribution cards in respect of members employed by him, send the contribution cards to the Commissioner together with a statement in Form 6:
Provided that where a member leaves service, the employer shall send the contribution card in respect of such First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 17 members before the twentieth day of the month following that in which the members left the service:
Provided further that in the case of any such employee who has become a member of the Family Pension Fund under the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, the aforesaid Form shall also contain such particulars as are necessary to comply with the requirements of that Scheme."
17. Rule 50 provides for provident fund account, which is as under:-
"50. Provident Fund Account.--The aggregate amount received as the employer's and the employees' contributions to the Fund shall be credited to an account to be called the "Provident Fund Account".
18. Rule 59 deals with Member's Accounts, which is as under:-
"59. Member's Accounts - (1) All account shall be opened in the office of the Fund in the name of each member in which it shall be credited:-- (a) his contributions, (b) the contributions made by the employer in respect of him, and (c) Interest as provided in paragraph 60.
(2) All items of account shall be calculated to [the nearest rupee, 50 paise or more to be counted as the next higher rupee and fraction of a rupee less than 50 paise to be ignored]. (3) On receipt of the contribution card or cards of a member from his employer or employers at the end of the period of currency of the contribution card, the Commissioner shall First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 18 compare the entries made in the contribution card or cards with those made in the member's individual account in the office of the Fund and shall rectify any discrepancy found in these entries."
and Rule 60 deals with Interest, which is as under:-
60. Interest (1) The Commissioner shall credit to the account of each member interest at such rate as may be determined by the Central Government in consultation with the Central Board.
(2) (a) Interest shall be credited to the member's account on monthly running balances basis with effect from the last day in each year in the following manner:--
(i) on the amount at the credit of a member on the last day of the preceding year, less any sums withdrawn during the current year-- interest for twelve months;
(ii) on sums withdrawn during the current year-- interest from the beginning of the current year upto the last day of the month preceding the month of withdrawal;
(iii) on all the sums credited to the member's account after the last day of the preceding year--interest from the 1st day of the month succeeding the month of credit to the end of the current year;
(iv) the total amount of interest shall be rounded to the nearest whole rupee (fifty paise counting as the next higher rupee).
(b) In the case of a claim for the refund under paragraph 69 or 70, interest shall be payable up to the end of the month preceding the date on which the final payment is authorised First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 19 irrespective of the date of receipt of the claim from the claimant concerned:
Provided that interest up to and for the current month shall be payable on the claims which are authorised on or after the 25th day of a particular month along with actual payment after the end of the current month: Provided further that the rate of interest to be allowed on claims for refund for the broken currency period shall be the rate fixed for the financial year in which the refund is authorised. Provided also that the rate of interest to be allowed on claims for refund for the broken currency period shall be the last declared rate on Employees' Provident Fund and if the rate declared for any current year happens to be less than the previous year's declared rate, then it would accrue as bonus to the outgoing members and it shall be incorporated into calculation for deriving the current year's rate of interest at the end of the year and the claims settled under this proviso shall be final.
Explanation.-- If an establishment is covered for the first time under the Act/Scheme during the course of the currency period the interest shall be allowed on the sums credited to the member's account on and from the first day of the month succeeding the month of credit to the end of the current year.
(3) The aggregate amount of interest credited to the accounts of the members shall be debited to "Interest Suspense Account".First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 20
(4) In determining the rate of interest, the Central Government shall satisfy itself that there is no overdrawal on the Interest Suspense Account as a result of the debit thereto of the interest credited to the accounts of members.
(5) Interest shall not be credited to the account of a member if he informs the Commissioner in writing that he does not wish to receive it. If, however, the member subsequently asks for interest, it shall be credited to his account with effect from the first day of the period of currency in which he makes a request therefore.
(6) Interest shall not be credited to the account of a member from the date on which it has become Inoperative Account, under the provisions of sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 72.]
19. These rules specifically provide that every month's contribution is to be passed on by the Employer/Contractor to the office of the Commissioner Provident Fund. It has not been denied by Op No. 3 that with the beginning of the Contract, the account numbers were not allotted to these employees/complainants. Since the Contractor has lateron filed the returns from 2008 onwards, which makes it clear that these employees had Provident Fund Account Numbers although returns were not filed by the Employer/Contractor with Op No. 3. When this matter was brought to the notice of OP No. 3 by the complainants vide their representations made to Provident Fund Commissioner (Ex. C-3) dated 19.9.2011, (Ex. C-4) dated 11.10.2011 and other letter (Ex. C-5) dated 24.11.2011, reminder First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 21 dated 13.1.2012 (Ex. C-6) and even Op No. 2 had also raised the matter with OP No. 3 vide letter Ex. C-1, which was received in their office in July, 2010 but no action was taken by Op No. 3 then one of the complainant Pal Singh wrote an application under RTI (Ex. C-7). In return to that application, OP No. 3 supplied the information vide their letter dated 10.12.2012 (Ex. C-8) and after that proceedings under Section 7A of the Act were initiated. OP No. 2 has also placed on the record various challans of State Bank of India deposited by Op No. 1 with Op No. 3 that the amount was deposited with Provident Fund Commissioner and this fact was got verified from the State Bank of India, who vide their letter dated 4.1.2014(OP-3/6) intimated that after checking of their record, it was confirmed that the challans attached to their caption letter was not received in their branch and then latgeron Op No. 1 deposited the amount with Provident Fund Commissioner and statement of contribution for 2010-11 is Ex. Op-1, 2011-12 is Ex. Op-2, 2008-09 is Ex. Op-3 and 2009-10 is Ex. Op-4, which makes it clear that the earlier challans filed by OP No. 1 alleged to have deposited the contribution with Provident Fund Commissioner with State Bank of India were false and fabricated challans. No doubt after the matter was raised with Provident Fund Commissioner at the end of the contract, they have taken the proceedings with Op Nos. 1 & 2 and with their intervention OP No. 1 had deposited the amount, which was further credited in the accounts of the complainants but their role is to be appreciated from 2008 onwards. In view of the provisions of the PF Scheme, 1952, referred above, in case the statement was to be submitted by the First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 22 Contractor/Employer every month and in case the amount was not being credited in the accounts of the Employees/complainants, who had their Provident Fund Accounts with their office then why at their own level no action was taken by them and they moved only with the intervention of the complainants/OP No. 2 when they came to know that their Provident Fund amount deducted from their salary alongwith Employer's share was not deposited in their accounts. Therefore, there was no timely intervention on the part of OP No. 3. In case they would have taken timely steps then the workers would not have to face this situation and their amounts would have been deposited in time with Op No. 3, therefore, there was slackness and deficiency in services on the part of OP No. 3 as well OP Nos. 1 & 2, therefore, all the three Ops were ordered to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 21,000/- to each complainant on account of litigation expenses because every complainant had first to approach the District Forum and then to defend the appeal and this amount is just and reasonable keeping in view the deficiency in service to check that amount of EPF was not timely deposited by Op Nos. 1 & 2.
20. No other point was raised.
21. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned orders of the District Forum are affirmed and upheld.
22. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 839 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 23 alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
23. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 840 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
24. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 841 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
25. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 842 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 24 Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
26. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 843 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
27. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 844 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3. First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 25
28. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 845 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
29. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 846 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
30. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 847 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 26 Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
31. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 848 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
32. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 849 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
33. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 850 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 27 Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
34. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 851 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
35. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 852 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
36. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 853 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 28 the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
37. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 854 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
38. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 855 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
39. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 856 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 29 No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
40. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 857 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
41. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 858 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
42. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 859 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 30 alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
43. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 860 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
44. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 861 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
45. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 862 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 31 Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
46. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 863 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
47. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 864 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3. First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 32
48. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 865 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
49. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 866 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
50. The appellant/OP No. 3 in F.A. No. 867 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, be paid to respondent No.3/complainant after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court whereas the remaining amount be kept pending with the First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 33 Commission. In case other Ops had paid their share then this amount will be released in favour of appellant/OP No. 3.
51. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1040 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
52. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1041 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
53. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1042 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
54. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1043 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 34 remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
55. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1044 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
56. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1045 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
57. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1046 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 35
58. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1047 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
59. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1048 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
60. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1049 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
61. The appellant/OP No.3 in F.A. No. 1050 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 3500/- & Rs. 3500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 36 of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
FIRTST APPEAL NO. 958 OF 2014
62. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant(OP No.1) that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is without jurisdiction, since the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 were initiated, which is yet to be finalized and the matter is sub-judice before the Provident Fund Commissioner, therefore, parallel proceedings under the CP Act are not maintainable. Against this plea already in First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 & others in para No. 10, the findings have been recorded by this Commission, those be read in this appeal as well.
63. It is further argued that the complaints filed by the complainants Pal Singh and others were barred by limitation as they had come to know in the year 2011 that the amount was not deposited, therefore, within two years the complaint should have been filed whereas the complaint was filed on 1.1.2014, therefore, it is clearly barred by limitation. It is clear from the pleadings referred above and discussed in First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 and Others that there was an agreement between Op Nos. 1 & 2 Ex. Op-2/1 and according to Condition No. 5 of the terms and conditions, OP No. 1 was to deduct the employees share from their wages as provident fund and the matching grant of the employer's share was to be deposited with Op No. 3 and the whole amount was to be taken by OP No. 1 from OP No. 2 and he had been getting this reimbursement from Op No. 2 as per the pleadings of OP No. 2 but Provident Fund First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 37 contributions were not deposited by Op No. 1 with OP No. 3 and ultimately, these were deposited with Op No. 3 from 12.7.2012 to 3.2.2014 even after the filing of the complaint. In case the provident fund of the workers was not deposited by OP No. 1 with Op No. 3 then it was a recurring cause of action. In case a part of the amount was deposited by OP No. 1 even after filing of the complaint then how it can be said that the complaint filed by the complainants was barred by limitation. Counsel for the appellant/OP No. 1 was unable to rebut these arguments, therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaints filed by the complainants were within limitation. However, no such plea was taken by OP No. 1 before the District Forum, therefore, no findings were recorded by the District Forum. Even for the sake of arguments, if it is taken that it was a legal preposition and it was obligatory on the part of the District Forum to discuss the plea whether the complaints filed by the complainants are within limitation and in case it was not discussed, appellant/OP No. 1 has a right to raise this issue before the Appellate Authority i.e. State Commission. Even if this plea is admitted, the counsel for the appellant/OP No. 1 was unable to controvert how it was not a recurring cause of action till amount of the workers is not deposited with Op No. 3 and in case the complaint is taken upto the date of deposit till the filing of the complaint, the amounts were not deposited, a part of the amount was deposited during the pendency of the complaint when proceedings under Section 7A of the Act were initiated by OP No. 3, therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint so filed by the complainant is within limitation.
First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 38
64. It was argued that the penalty passed by the District Forum to the extent of Rs. 1 lac each against each complainant is disproportionate to the relief sought. No doubt that in the relief clause, a sum of Rs. 1 lac was demanded as compensation and the same has been awarded but a fact is required to be noted that on the basis of contract between Op Nos. 1 & 2, OP No. 1 was to deposit the amount of Provident Fund from the wages of the worker and after getting the matching grant of the Employer OP No. 2 was to be deposited with Op No. 3 and he was to get reimbursement from OP No. 2 and he was getting reimbursement from OP No. 2 but he did not deposit the same with Op No. 3. Rather on the record he produced fabricated challans and vide letter Ex. OP-3/6, it was intimated by the State Bank of India that the challans were not received by their Banker, therefore, these were false and fabricated and lateron he deposited the amount for the year 2008-09 to 2011- 12, which clearly showed that these were fabricated challans. The workers are petty workers. In case a big Contractor is misappropriating the hard earned money of petty workers then it is pity upon him that he is mis-appropriating the hard earned money of petty workers and for such a big Contractor there should be exemplary costs so that in future such like Contractors should not indulge in these type of illegal activities. In view of these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the penalty so imposed by the District Forum is justified keeping in view the conduct of Op No. 1. In case the money has been misappropriated by his employee, it is his own affair and he was also responsible to ensure whether his First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 39 employees are working properly and amount is duly deposited with Op No. 3 and that cannot be a ground to give a clean chit to Op No. 1, therefore, in our opinion, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
65. The appellant in F.A. No. 958 of 2014 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 75,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
66. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
67. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 6.10.2015 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
68. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
69. Copy of the order be placed on other 40 appeals mentioned above.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member October 15, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member First Appeal No. 839 of 2014 40