State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri M D Desai vs Dcwltd Employees Provident Fund Trust ... on 3 January, 2013
A-40-2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/12/40 a/w MA/12/25
(Arisen out of Order Dated 02/11/2011 in Case
No. 342/2006 of District DCF, South Mumbai)
1. SHRI M D DESAI
2/3 RAJASHRI SHAHU
CO-OP HSG SOC., SANE GURUJI NAGAR, 90 FEET ROAD MULUND EAST, MUMBAI
400081
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. DCWLTD EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND TRUST
C/O DCW LIMITED
NIRMAL 3RD FLOOR NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400023
MAHARASHTRA
2. DCW LIMITED
NIRMAL 3RD FLOOR
NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400023, MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE Mr. S.R.
Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Applicant/Appellant in person.
O R D E R Per Shri S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:
Heard Appellant in person. While directing the Appellant to give notice of delay condonation application to the other side, following direction was given:
Since postal acknowledgement of the notice sent to the respondent has not come back with any endorsement, fresh notice be issued to the respondent by RPAD through Commission at the cost of appellant. Appellant is directed to supply appeal compilation and deposit required postage in the office of this Commission within 7 days, failing which the appeal shall automatically stand dismissed without any further reference to this Commission. Adjourned to 03/01/2013.
Consequently, the said order is complied within stipulated period of seven days only against the Non-Applicant/Respondent No.2 DCW Ltd., and no compliance at all is made as far as Respondent No.1 DCW Employees Provident Fund Trust. In the circumstances by the self operative order dated 15/10/2012, supra, the appeal as against Respondent No.1 - DCW Ltd. Employees Provident Fund Trust; automatically stood dismissed and we have no power to review that order or give any further concession. The issue involved viz. the payment of the provident fund dues, rests with the DCW Employees Provident Fund Trust. Since appeal against it stood dismissed, the appeal as against the employer Respondent No.2 DCW Limited, which is a Limited Company, will not survive. It is submitted by the Appellant that Respondent No.2 actually controls the Respondent No.1 Trust. Whatever it may be, but it is the question of internal management and since Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the distinct and separate legal entities and no liability in respect of Provident fund dues arises in respect of Respondent No.2 Limited Company, we find the dismissal of the complaint as against Respondent No.2 Company cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, this is not the case for admission against surviving Respondent No.2 DCW Limited. Thus, appeal as against Respondent No.2 - DCW is not admitted. Hence, the order:
O R D E R Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 3rd January, 2013.
[HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep