Need For Creating Office Of Ombudsman

[Cites 31, Cited by 0]

Law Commission Report

Need For Creating Office Of Ombudsman

 

LAW COMMISSION
OF INDIA

ONE HUNDRED THIRTY - SEVENTH

REPORT

ON

NEED FOR CREATING OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
AND FOR EVOLVING LEGISLATIVE -- ADMINISTRATIVE
MEASURES Inter Alia TO RELIEVE HARDSHIPS CAUSED
BY INORDINATE DELAYS IN SETTLING PROVIDENT FUND
CLAIMS OF BENEFICIARIES



LAW COMMISSION
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SHASTRI BHAWAN

NEW DELHI

nﬂﬂ
M.P. THAKKAR
Cliairman

D.O. No. 6(3)/88-LC(LS)
October, 5, 1990.

To

Shri Dinesh Goswami,
Minister of Law and Justice,
Government of India,
Shastri Bhavan,

NEW DELHI.

Dear Minister,
RE : Presentation of 137th Report.

The suo MOTU exercise of a jurisdiction conferred on the Commission--to
undertake post-audit of socio-economic legis1ation--which has not been exercised
hitherto has resulted in bringing to surface the existence of a sorry state of affairs
in the area of disbursements of provident fund accummulations to the concerned
employees on their retirement or to their nominees/dependents in the event of their
in-service death. A sample survey has revealed that as many as 8707 cases of pay-
ments delayed for a period exceeding 6 months have come to light in 62 public
sector undertakings subjected _to survey. 481 Complaints of non-payment received
in response to a press-release issued to collect material revealed information which
cannot but cause distress. And within about 3 months of the Commission taking
up the issue as many as 139 complaints arising in the context of delays ranging up
to 21 years (it is not a typing error, the ﬁgure IS in fact TWENTY-ONE) were re-
dressed. While removal of the distress of these 139 families is a matter of satisfac-
tion what is much more important is that it has revealed the urgent need for creating
a high powered monitoring agency in the form of an Ombudsman. The sample sc-
rutiny of the records of the defaulting undertakings has on the other hand revealed
the equally urgent need for devising other remedial measures to foreclose such an
awesome situation in future. Hence the 137th report entitled-

"NEED FOR CREATING OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN AND FOR
EVOLVING LEGISLATIVE--ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES
INTER ALIA TO RELIEVE HARDSHIPS CAUSED BY INORDIN-
ATE DELAYS IN SETTLING PROVIDENT FUND CLAIMS

OF BENEFICIARIES"
dealing with this vital problem and allied matters is being presented hereby. Having
presented the report the rest must rest with the Ministry. A restless conscience
however impels me to add that even as the report is being ﬁnalised, another ins-
tance (vide postscript added to the last Chapter, viz., Chapter VI) has come to light

showing how besides the earlier mentioned complainants nearly four hundred fur-
thermore employees or their family members are being treated with callousness
and the appointment of an Ombudsman as recommended by the accompanying
Report is a matter which does not brook any delay.

With regards,
Yours faithfully,

Sd./-

E I A b ve (M.P. THAKKAR)
nc. : s a 0 . ~
(i)-(_ii'



LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA

ONE HUNDRED THIRTY SEVENTH
REPORT

ON
NEED FOR CREATING OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

IAND FOR EVOLVING LEGISLAT[VE----ADMINISTRATIVE

MEASURES INTER ALIA TO RELIEVE HARDSHIPS CAUSED
BY INORDINATE DELAYS IN SETTLING PROVIDENT
FUND CLAIMS OF BENEFICIARIES '

(iii)-(iv)



CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II

CHAPTER 111
CHAPTER IV

CHAPTER V

CHAPTER V1

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIcEs DI
& DH
APPENDIX E
APPENDIx F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIcEs H]
to H111

APPENDIcEs 1(1)
to (V 1)

CONTENTS

lntroduction . . . . . . . .

Delays in settlement of Provident Fund dues to the claimants----
Circumstances and Causes identiﬁed . . . . . .

Magnitude of the problem----Need for creation of a statutory ombuds-
man . . . . . . . . . . .

Other measures commended for expediting payments of Provident
Fund accumulations to the beneﬁciaries . . . .

Problem regarding legal implication of 'Nominations' under the
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952---suggested solution . . . . . .

Conclusions and summary of recommendations . . . .
Notes and References . . . . . . .

Letter dated 24-10-1988 addressed to all Public Sector Undertakings
and their Employees' Trade Unions . . . . . .

Letter dated 28-ll-1988 addressed to all India Level Trade Unions

Letter dated 28-ll-1988 addressed to all Regional Provident Fund
Commissioners . . . . . . . . .

Statements of pending claims in Public Sector Undertaking . .

Press release dated 20-12-1988 . . . . . . .

Statement of Provident Fund claims settled on matters being tackled
by commission . . . . . . . .

Statement of delay involved in disputed cases . . . .
Proforma of return required to be called for from Employers/RPFC

Correspondence _ with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Calcutta, Revealxng unwarranted inordinate delay In nearly 400 cases

(V-Vi)

PAGE

12

16

25

30
33

34
35

36
37

45
52
53

56



CHAPTER I
' INTRODUCTION

1.

1. Post-audit of socfo-economic legislation pertaining to Employees' Provident Funds reveals pitiable plight of beneﬁcicrries and cries for urgent remedial measures- A jurisdiction being exercised for the ﬁrst time, 'post--audit' of socio-economic legis- lation (envisaged by clause l of the extant 'Terms of Reference'), has brought to surface the serious problem pertaining to unconscionable delays in disbursement of provident fund accumulations to the rightful claimants.

l.2. Result of survey of public sector undertakings highlights magnitude of prob- lem--A survey of arrears in clearance of claims arising in the context of retiremen- or death of employees of 62 public sector undertakinsg made by the Commission disclosed that as many as 8,707 families were suffering hardship caused by delays exceeding six months.

1.3. Startling and surlrlening picture emerging on survey based on scrutiny of individual complaints--The Complaints received by the Commission pursuant to a press release revealed a sorry state of affairs in the sphere of the administration of the beneﬁcient and benevolent measures pertaining to disbursement of provident fund accumulations and retiremental beneﬁts of the concerned employees :-

(I) As many as 48] employees or their beneﬁciaries had complained of delays and delays in respect of further 400 employees» had come to the notice of the Commission during the Course of its investigation. And a much larger number must be on the casualty list for not everyone would have read the press note and even from out of them only some would have responded.

(2) Delays extended up to 21 years in undisputed cases and up to 35 years plus in disputed cases [See Appendices 'F' and 'G'].

(3) In as many as 139 cases, the delay extending up to'_'-21 years was appa-

rently and evidently unjustified and most of the claims were settled (wholly or partly) and satisﬁed within about three months of the Com- mission taking up the maters with the respective agencies guilty for the delays.

1.4. Identification of causes for delays----The Commission deputed a team of its otﬁcials to inspect some public sector establishments and to make a sample sc- rutiny of the relevant records in order to locate the causes of such delays. The sur- vey has revealed a host of causative factors responsible for this state of aﬂairs.

1.5. The deleterious consequences of delays---The distress occasioned by de- lays in disbursements scarcely needs to be stressed. The problem arises mainly in the context of two possible situations. An employee's retirement, or, his death before the date of superannuation. In the event of his retirement at the fag end of his working life he is suddenly faced with a frightening scenario. From the very next month of his retirement his income ceases. On What does be live? He can only clutch at the provident fund beneﬁts which he can utilise (1) in some venture or (2) in some income yielding investment or (3) for acquiring some housing accommo- dation. Or he may need the funds to complete the education or to perform the marriage of his children. Delay in disbursement would naturally result in an un bearable predicament. In the event of his death, the plight of his widow, children, or, parents, can be readily visualised. A letter of complain quoted in a judgment of the Gujarat High Court [P.K. Martiyani vs. RPFCP arising in the context of a delay of 2-] /2 years in settling the dues of a widow entirely due to the apathy of the department will help in visualising her plight more vividly:--

of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (the clipping of the said letter is annexed hereto and marked Annexure 'A') :

"Sir, --I am unfortunate destitute woman of a backward commu- nity. My husband Mr. T. K. Thankappan, died of cancer on April 8, 1977 while he was in the service of Gujarat Reﬁnery, Baroda, as a painter. He left behind me and our three children. Life is a struggle for existence in our case as we have no means of livelihood.

My husband was a member of the provident fund family pen- sion scheme under the jurisdiction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmediabad. His account No. is G] 4951/55166. Under the scheme, I am eligible to get from the Regional PF Com- missioner more than Rs. 7,000/- towards the Deposit Link Insu- rance and an amount of Rs. 150 per month towards family pension with eﬂect from April 1977. Ironically, I have not received a single paise so far from the Regional P. F. Commissioner. The case papers relating to my claim are being tossed about like shuttlecock between the PF Commissioner, Ahmedabad and the Gujarat Reﬁnery, Baroda, under one pretext or the other.

I have been eagerly looking forward to receiving the remittance from the PF Commissioner for the last 2-1/2 years but to my utter disapointment it has not yet materialised. Somehow or the other I now fear that I will not get a single paisa till I too take my last breath. As I am keeping indiﬂerent health, struggling very hard to make both ends meet, ,1 may have to leave behind my three helpless children sooner or later.

As a last resort, I am writing this letter to you with a request to see whether you can help me to get the dues from the PF Commissioner through your good oﬁices. As you know, I am staying thousands of miles away ﬁ'om}Ahmedabad. In spite of that I sent my representative to the PF Commissioner's oﬂice twice but his pleadings fell on deaf ears. Please help me : God will help you".

Theproblem is therefore of profound importance for the employees or their depen- dents who are suffering presently and are exposed to suﬁering in future as also for the community which has evolved the benevolent project extending the protective umbrella of provident fund beneﬁts to the employees in order to provide succour to them.

1 .6. Present exercise--'l'he Commission has in this back-drop suo motu under- taken the present exercise aimed at three main objectives, viz. :--

_ (1) Bringing to light the magnitude of the hardships suﬂered by the employees or the beneﬁciaries in the context of the delays ranging from 6 months plus to 20 years in the settlement of their claims.

(2) Making recommendations in order to evolve a machinery to expedite settlement of theii claims And to suggest measures including amend-

ment of relevant _provisions of "Employees'Provident Funds and Mis- cellaneous Provisions Act, 1952" (Act for short) and the Scheme framed thereunder in order to foreclose such delays or to keep such delays within the narrowest time parameters in future.

(3) To identify a serious problem pertaining to legal implications of 'nomina- nations' which not only already exists but has also the potential of visit- ing the beneﬁciaries of, deceased employees with grave consequences.

and to make appropriate recommendations for resolving the problem; And what follows is the result of the said exercise.

CHAPTER II DELAYS IN SETTLEMENT OF PROVIDENT FUND DUES TO THE CLAIMANTS----CIRCUMSTANCES AND CAUSES IDENTIFIED 2.1. Gathering of information from pu_bIz'c sector undertakings as regards ex- tent of claims remaining unsettled---With a view to study the problem of delay in the settlement of pensionary beneﬁts and Provrcdnt Fund cases, the Law Commission on October 24, 1988, addressed a letter (Appendix 'A ') to all the Public Sector Under- takings and to the concerned Trade Unions calling for factual information on the following three points 2--

(a) Number of Provident Fund and retirement dues cases pending ﬁnali- sation whether after retirement or death of an employee for more than six months;

(b) Information regarding the number of Provident Fund and retirement dues cases which have been ﬁnalised and payment has been made to the concerned employee or his nominee or legal heirs after six months of his retirement or death, as the case may be, during the last two years; and

(c) Average time taken in ﬁnalising the Provident Fund claims and retire- ment dues of an employee and payment made to him.

A similar letter (Appendix B) was addressed to all national level trade unions on November 28, 1988. Information on similar lines was also called for from all the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners vide letter dated November 28, 1988 (Appendix C).

2.2. Less than pretty picture of Public Sector Undertakings----Some Central Government Public Sector Statutory Corporations were found to be amiss in mak- ing disbursements within a reasonable time frame as disclosed by the information furnished in pursuance to the aforesaid inquiry. Statistics gathered by the Commjs. sion are revealing :---

Number of Corporations which have not cleared claims Tom number of claimants for more than 6 months -- whose claims have been outstanding for more than 6 months I. Involving more than 1000 suﬁering employees 2 . . . . . . . 6833 (3689-l-3144) II. Involving more than 250 suﬂiring employee:

2 . . . . . . . . . 757 (497+260) III. Involving more than 100 suferirrg employees 2 . - - - . . . 234(r3o+1o4) IV. Involving more than 50 suferirrg employees 4 . . . . . . . 333 (99-1-96 +794-59) V. Rear 52 550 Total 52 3707' """""' ' ' ""

By no means, a very ﬂattering scenario.

[Full details are incorporated in statement at Appendices DI and D11] Scrutiny of records---On the basis of the information gathered from the Public Sector Undertakings, the Regional Provident F d Co Unions, in order to have a deeper study of the lp:oblemn;II;lr:?ia';ei§e?1'ii'i'yt1:1?eT;:;::1?:

causes of delay in the settlement of caws, the records pertaining to cases pending 3 4 settlement with the following three LlI1(i=3l'tE:l:ltlgS \'-.'e1'C studied on the spot by deputing a team of researchers :----

(i) Central W:u'chousing Corporation, Delhi olﬁcc;

(ii) National Project Construction Corporation Ltd., Delhi ofﬁce; and

(iii) Steel Authority of India Ltd., Rourkeln. oﬁice.

2.3. Causes for cleyals l'('l'€(IlC'(/ by study --/xs rsult oi" the study carried out of the responses received from all sources and the inspection of records carried out as a sample survey, a number of causes responsible for the delay in the settlement of Provident Fund and other retirement dues cases, came to be identiﬁed. These causes can be conveniently grouped under three major heads, namely :-

(i) causes attributable to the employers;

(ii) causes attributable to the Oﬁice of Regional Provident Fund Commis-

' sioners; and

(iii) other causes.

2.4. Causes attributable to the empl0_1'('I's----The following causes attributable to the employers which result 111 delay in the ﬁrzalzsation and settlenient of cases of Provident Fund and other retirement dues have been identiﬁed :~

(i) Inaction or indifference on the part of the employer;

(ii) Stalling settlement of the claim for provident fund dues on the mere objection of a third party; '

(iii) Submission/forwarding of incorrect and incomplete papers tothe Trust or the Ofﬁce of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner;

(iv) Non-ﬁnalisation of proceedings of inquiry into misconduct of the em- ployees;

(v) Non-deposit by employers of their share and/or employees' contributions of Provident Fund;

(vi) Deployment of untrained stall';

(vii) Unwarranted insistence on production of a Succession Certiﬁcate;

(viii) Unwarranted insistance on the production of 'No Demand Certi- ﬁcate'.

2. 5.1. Inaction or ina'iffercnce on the part of the employer---It has been noticed that many a time the ﬁnalisation of cases of provident fundand other retirement dues is delayed due to inaction on the part of the employer. The retiring employee or his nominee or legal beneﬁciary submits necessary claim application well in time but not action is taken thereon by the employer. Ageneral lack of prompt action has been noticed. The case of Shri M.D. Pandar Bole of Central Warehousing Cor- poration will illustrate the point. The intimation regarding the death Of Shri Pandar Bole was received by the Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust on Jan. 1, 1981. No action was taken in the matter for more th till August 18, I986. The Trust, on August 18, 1986, Called for t particulars of the deceased employee from the Regional Oﬂice of the Corporation The claimants produced a Succession Certificate issued by the Tehsildar some time in March/April, 1987. The Succession Certiﬁcate was not accepted by the Trust as not having been issued by the Competent Authority. And on February 10 1989 the claimants were called upon to produce indemnity bond, aﬁidavit and Succes:

ion Certiﬁcate. The case was still pending settlement at the time of on-the-spot study of the record by oﬂicers of the Commission in March 1989. Thus, the delay of ﬁve years plus during the period /anuary l, 1981 to August l8, 1986 and again of nearly 2 years during the period May 1987 to February 10, 1989 has been due to the inaction or indIﬁ"erem'c on the part of the employer.

an 5 years he service 2.5.2. Stalling payment on mere objection by a third party----The employers often stop the payment of the amount of Provident Fund and other retirement bene. ﬁts on mere objection ofa third party and instead of deciding the issue so raised they direct the parties to get their dispute settled from a court of law. To illustraté 5 the point, the case of Shri M. Krislman of Central Warehousing Corporation can be quoted. The employee died while in service on March 3, 1988. Intimation of death was received by the employer on March 4, 1988. The nominees, namely the two St)Il.,3 of the clecrasccl, submittccl the claim forms. W/tile the case was being processed, the second it-'i/'e of the clcccusvtl on July 23, 1938 raisecl a dispute regarding the entitle- ment of the nominees to receive the amount ofprovidentfund. The employers there- upon in October 1988 direeterl the nominees to produce Succession Certiﬁcate instead of leaving the objector to ﬁle a suit and obtain a stay order if so desired. The case was found pending at the time of inspection ofrccord in March 1989 by the ofﬁcers of the Commission.

2.5.3. Submission offaulty papers by employers----Tlie settlement of cases also gets delayed due to submission ofincorrect or incomplete papers by the employers either to the Trust in case of exempted organisation, or to the Regional Provi- dent Fund Commissioner. in this regard the case of Smt. Indiabai P. Desai can be cited as an illustration. Smt. Desai submitted her claim papers in respect of her deceased husband on November 15, 1987. According to the RPFC, the papers were forwarded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 13-9-1988 but were not found to be in order. The same were not even attested by the employer, as a result of which the claim could be settled only in May 1989, i,e., after a lapse ofabout one and a half years. Thus for the fault of the employer, the innocent employee had to so/7"er hardship ztnnecessa.I'/'ly.

The employers under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder are required to furnish statutory returns to the Oﬁ_ice,of the Regional Provident Fund Com, missioner. The returns so furnished are sometimes diefective, incorrect or incomplete which results in the delay of ﬁnal settlement of the claims. The case of Mrs. Lily Joseph can be quoted with beneﬁt in this regard. She resigned from the service of Students Academy, Mahindra Educational Society, Bombay, in June 1985. Her case could be ﬁnally settled only after a lapse of 4 years in May 1989 when the amount was paid to her. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner stated that the delay was due to non-submission of proper returns by the employer. It is understood that a pro- vident fund inspectoﬁshould have been deputed to the establishment for securing proper returns as per standing instructions which were not adhered to.

2.5.4. Withholding payment on the unwarranted ground of pendency of disci- plinary proceedings~An employee during the course of his service is sometimes charge-sheeted for an alleged act of misconduct. The inquiry proceedings initiated are not ﬁnalised before the retirement of the employee and are continued even be- yond that. Pending such inquiry the claim regarding Provident Fund and other bene- ﬁts is not settled though it is not permissible to do so under the Act and the Scheme.

225.5. Employers' failure to deposit deductions made from employees' wages and/or their own share----Under para 29 of the Scheme of 1952 framed under the Employees' Provident and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, both the employer and the employee are required to contribute equally, subject to a maximum of 8 . 33 'X, towards the Provident Fund. Para 32 prescribes the mode of recovery of the employees' share or contribution. It provides that the amount of the employee's contribution shall, notwithstanding the provisions of the Scheme of 1952 or any law for the time being in force or any contract to the contrary, be recoverable by means of deduction from the wages of the employee. Under para 38(1) of the Scheme of 1952, each employer is, within ﬁfteen days of the close of every month, required to pay the employees' contribution together with his own contribution as well as administrative charges, if any, to the Fund by separate bank drafts or cheques on account of contributions and administrative charges. Sub-para (2) of para 38 fur- ther provides that the employer shall forward to the Commissioner, within twenty ﬁve days of the close of the month, a monthly consolidated statement, in such form as the Commissioner may specify, showing recoveries made from the wages of each employee and the amount contributed by the employer in respect of each em-

loyee. Though there is a statutory obligation on the employer to deposit, within ﬁfteen days of the close of the month, his and the employee's contribution to the Fund and submit the requsite return to the Commissioner within twenty-ﬁve days of the close of the month, in practice it has been noticed that the 'employers' quite often do not deposit their contribution to the fund regularly and sometime conti- nuously for months together. They often fail to deposit the deductions made from 6 the wages of the employees. The result is that the cases are not ﬁnally settled till the outstanding amount is received from the employer. To illustrate the point, the case of Shri R.A. Swami of Narnaul may be mentioned. He retired from the ser- vices of Jaora Sugar Mills on June 3, 1987. While his own contribution towards Provident Fund hsa been refunded, only 65 per cent of the en1ployer's contribution has been paid to him so far. The balance of 35 per cent of the employer 's contribution has not been paid to him on the ground that the employer has not deposited the same so far. The case is still pending final settlement though about two and half years have passed since the retirement of Shri Swami who is helpless in the sense that while he cannot take any legal steps against the employer, the authoritjes adopt a nonchalant attitude and do not take the steps which only they can take.

2.5.6. Development of untrained staﬂ by the employers--The staff engaged to deal with the cases pertaining to Provident Fund and other retirement dues cases is often incompetent which results in the ﬁnal settlement of such cases. Being untrained, such officials are not conversant with the relevant rules on the subject, as a result of which mistakes are committed in the preparation of the record, thereby causing delay in the settlement of claims. The case of Smt. Shanti Ghosh of Calcutta is a glaring example where her claim of gratuity and pension has not been ﬁnalised even after more than seven years. Smt. Ghosh retired as a Teacher from S.N.N. Girls High School, Calcutta, on February 28, 1982. The school autho- rities submitted the relevant papers regarding gratuity and pension to the District Inspector of Schools in 1983. The papers were returned by the District Inspector of Schools to the school authorities in 1986 with the direction that the claim should be prepared in accordance with the revised rules. The papers were resubmitted by the school authorities after preparing them afresh to the District Inspector of Schools. The Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, West Bengal, again in 1988 returned the papers to the s hool authorities with objections. Thevobjections so raised were removed and papers submitted by the school authorities in December 1988. The matter was pending with the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, West Bengal till June 1989 when it was utlimately settled after a delay of nearly ﬁve years. The school authorities have stated that the reason for the delay has been mainly due to the untrained staﬂ employed by them which is not con- versant with the relevant rules on the subject. Thus. whereas delays occur either on account of the fault on the part of the employer or the fault of the autorities, only the Employees have to suﬂer for no fault of theirs and they ﬁnd themselves helpless in t e matter.

2.5.7. Withholding disbursement by unwarranted insistence on succession certi- ﬁcate--Para 72(1) of the Scheme of 1952 provides that when the amount standing to the credit of a member, or the balance thereof after deduction under para 69, becomes payable, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to make prompt payment as provided in this Scheme. In case there is no nominee in accordance with this Scheme or there is no person entitled to receive such amount under para 70, the Commissioner may, if the amount to the credit of the Fund does not exceed Rs. 10,000 and if satisﬁed after inquiry about the title of the claimant, pay such amount to the claimant. A plain reading of the provisions of para 72(1) shows that the Commissioner is duty bound to----

(i) pay the amount to the nominee, if a valid nomination subsists; or

(ii) to pay the amount to the members _of the family in accordance with clause (ii) of para 70, if there IS no valid nomination or if 'the nomination relates only to a part of 'the amount.

The Commissioner cannot ask either the nominee or the members of the family, en- umerated in clause (ii) of para 70, to produce Succession Certiﬁcate. A Succession Certiﬁcate may be called for only when there is no nominee and no person entitled to receive the amount under clause (ii) of para 70. In other words the Commissioner may call for Succession Certiﬁcate only in cases falling under clause (iii) of Para 70 and that too when there is a doubt about the title of the claimant or where rival clai- mants come forward. Paras 115, 116 and 117 or Chapter III of Manual of Account- ing Procedure (Volume 1) (Part II), Employees Provident Fund Organisation, read

-as under :-

"l 15. If there is no nominee in accordance with the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, or there is no person entitled to receive such amonut under sub-para (ii) of para 70 of'the Scheme, the claim is required to be 7 settled under para 70 (iii) of the Scheme. In such cases the Regional Commissioner, if the arnountto the credit of the Fund does not exceed Rs. 10,000 and if he is satisﬁed after enquiry about the title of the claimant, may pay such amount to the claimant under para 70(m) of the Scheme. For this purpose the Regional Commissioner may make reference to the appropriate state (normally revenue) authorities.

116. Where even after reference to the civil authorities as indicated in the above paras, there is a doubt about the title of the claimant or where rival claimants come forward, it would be necessary to call for a Succes- sion Certiﬁcate.

117. Again, in cases where there is no nominee or there is no person entitled to receive the Employees' Provident Fund dues 'under sub-para (ii) of para 70 of the Scheme and the amount of the claim etgceeds Rs. 10,000, proof of heirship has to be called for. The claimant in such cases may be advised to produce a Succession Certiﬁcate from an appropriate Court of Law. Payment in accordance with para 70 (iii) of the Scheme, to the persons in whose favour Succession Certiﬁcate has been granted would be valid discharge. In cases where the claimants ﬁnd it diﬂicult to produce Succession Certiﬁcate and where the Regional Commissioner is satisﬁed that the difficulty is genuine, he may refer the matter with complete details to the Central oﬂice. In deserving cases of genuine distress, the Central oﬂice, in consultation with the Central Government, where necessary, may authorise the Regional Commissioner to make payments to the claimants on execution of an indemnity bond with adequate number of solvent sureties."

Notwithstanding the aforesaid clear provisions on the subject, it has been observed that the authorities call for Succession Certhicate on the slightest pretext even when the case falls under clause (i) or caluse (ii) ofpara 70 of the Scheme. The case 'of Shri K. Gandhi of National Project Construction Corporation may be mentioned by way of illustration. Shri Gandhi who dies on October 17, 1986, had made the nomination in favour of his two sisters and one brother: The two sisters were to get, in equal shares, 50 per cent of the amount, while the remaining 50 per cent was to go to his brother. One of the nominees, the brother, had predeceased the employee. On the claim papers having been submitted by the two sisters, the authorities in July 1988 decided. to call upon the claimants to produce the' Succession Certiﬁcate in respect of the whole of the amount. In this case 50 per cent of the amount could lzave been paid to the two sisters under clause (i) of para 70. The remaining 50 per cent was to be disbursed in accordance with clause (ii) of para 70. However, instead of taking such a course, the authorities called upon the claimants to produce Succession Certificate in respect of whole of the amount. The case is still pending.

At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the Oﬂice of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is insisting on the production of Succession Certiﬁcate on the slightest pretegt even in cases falling under clauses (i) and (ii) of para 70 of the Scheme. To reinforce the point, it is apposite to advert to Imambhai Vs. RPFC, whrein the claim of the nominee was repelled by a one word order "rejected" even tchough no succession certiﬁcate could have been insisted upon. Says the High 'ourt :----

"4. An examination of 'the record also reveals that the applicant as required:

to obtain a sucesston certtficatein support of his claim though ultimately his caltm was rejected. The document placed on record goes to show that the applicant had to incur an expenditure of more than a thousand; rupees. Court fee stamp of Rs. 900 had to be procured for 'obtaining; the succession certiﬁcate. Some amount must have been expended in payment of legal fees for obtainingsthe succession certiﬁcate. Not less: than a thousand rupees must have been spent in this connection. It was, not realized that having regard to the fact that the deceased workman had: made a nomination under Paragraph 23(1) of the Employees Deposit-

Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (quoted hereinbelow) which categorically 8 provides certifcate for payntent of the amount clue to the nominee, succession certificate was not necessary. Paragrali 23( I) reads as under :

"The nominations made by an employee under the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, I952 shall be treated as nominations under this Scheme and the assurance amount shall become payable to such nominee or nominees."

lt is hoped that the 0Fﬁce of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner will guide the applicants in such matters so that they are saved from incurring unnecessary expendiure. It is also hoped that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner will make an appropriate inquiry, obtain legal opinion. if necessary. and pass an appropriate order so that a rightful claimant is not driven to a Court of law in order to obtain his dues under the relevant provision ofsthe benevolent Act and the Scheme which have been specially designed with an eye on amelioration of the workers.

It should therefore be provided in the Scheme itself that succession certificate should not be insisted upon in cases covered by para 70(i) and 70 (ii). Only in cases covered by para 70(iii) and that too only provided there is a bona fide doubt about the title of the claimant or there is a rival calimant it ma 1 be demanded.

2.5.8. Unwarranted insistence on production of No Demand Ce/'tiﬁcate-- Another cause which occasions delay in the ﬁnalisation and settlement of cases is the requirement as to production of 'No Demand Certiﬁcate'. This certiﬁcate is given by the employer cert ifying that there are no dues recoverable from the employee. Even though there is no provision in the Employees' Provident Funds and Mis- cellaneous Provisions Act, l952 and the Scheme framed thereunder authorising the withholding of the provident fund dues for want of such a ceriﬁeate, the dues are often withheld by preferring this excuse. Again, while the employee is generally called upon to produce such a certiﬁeaje after obtaining it from the concerned depart- ment/oﬁicial of the employer, the employee is "totally helpless if his request is not attended to for very many months or years. To illustrate the point. it may be men- tioned that even though an employee (Shri Lalan Kuki) submitted his claim papers after retirement in April 1988, his case has not been ﬁnalised for more than l8 months or want of 'No Demand Certiﬁcate ' by his employer [National Project Construction Corporation].

2.6. Causes attributable to the _Office of Regional Provident Fund Commis- sioner--The causes which can be. attributed to the oﬁice of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for dalay in the ﬁnal settlement of cases, inter alia, are 2

(a) inaction, indifference or fault on the part of the oﬁice/officials;

(b) shortage of staff;

(d) unwarranted insistence _on production of documents such as Succession Certiﬁcate or 'No Objection Certiﬁcate'.

2.6.1. Indiﬂerence, inaction or fault of oﬁicials-----One of the major Causes for delay in the settlement of Provident Fund and other retirement dues cases is inaction or fault on the part of the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The matters ordinarily are not given prompt attention. Paragraph 91 of Chapter III, Manual of Accounting Procedure (Volume 1 Part II) of the Employees' Pm- vident Fund Organisation requires that every eﬂort should be made to ensure that the claims for ﬁnal refund of Employees' Provident Fund dues and other beneﬁts under Employees' Family Pension/Employees' Deposit-Linked Insurance Schemes are settled within 20 days of their receipt. Various measures have been laid down in order to ensure speedy settlement of accounts. Such measures are contained in para 92 Chapter III of the Manual. However, in practice the settlement of cases is generally delayed. Some cases are settled after several years. 'The ease of one Shri Iqbal Ahmed of Bangalore can be cited as an illustration. Shri Ahmed served M/s Road Bird (P) Ltd., Calcutta, during 1972 to October 1981. His case regarding the Provident Fund and Family Pension was settled in March 1983. The amounts were sent by the Ofﬁce of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vide Cheque dated March 21, 1983 and March 30, 1983. The cheque in respect of the amount of the 9 p,.m,-;d€,,, 1r_,,,,(/ W/<, ;w;n;-rm) 1» tin» Ofﬁcz' of Regional I'rovidont Fund Conunissioner as there was some clcrical ii. "'tclrc tl:c1'ciI1. l'lSfé'(1(l of correcting the error and redes- patching it lvaclr to the ei7iploi'cr. tho Office of thc Regional Provident Fund Commis- sioner canccllcrl the clzeqnc in Octobcr i983 and there after no action was taken by them to pay the amount to thc cnzplorce.

2.6.2. Paucity o/'staﬂ'----On a reference being made by the Commission to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Calcutta, for ascertaining reasons for the delay in the settlement of cases of ex--employees of M,/s Guest Keen and William, which had ddeclared a lock out in October 1987, it was reported by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that only two officials were available in his office to deal with the cases of the cx-employees of the Company resulting in the delay in settlement of cases.

2.6.3. Imliffc/'cI1cc or '/'ailurc ofo_/ﬁcials to talcc appropriate stcps----An0thcr major cause for the delay in the settlement of provident fund and other retirement dues cases is failure on the part of the office of the Region?-.1 Provident Fund Com- missioncr to perform the statutory duties imposed upon it under the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. The employees under the provisions of the Act and the Scheme are required to furnish a number of statutory returns to the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. T he returns so submitted are sometimes incomplete or incorrect. Due to lack of proper scrutiny, the omissions, etc, in the returns are not detectccl. These conic to notice only when a claim is being processed. The result is that the settlement of the claim gets delayed pending the removal or correction of the omissions/discrr-patncy in the statutory returns. The most glaring example of such failurr: to scrutinise the return is the case where the employer fails to deposit his sh::re of the contribution towards provident fund. Under para 38(1) of the Scheme of i952, each cmplo_t'cr is, within fifteen days of the close of every month. rcquirrd to pay the employc€s' contribution together with his own contri- bution as well as administrative clzargcs, if any, to the Fund by separate bank drafts or cheques on account of contribution and administrative charges. Para 38(2) further I'€qz»/ircs that the employer shall forward to the Commissioner, within twenty- five days ofthe close of the month. a consolidated statement. in such form as the Commissioner may specify, showing recoveries made from the wages of each employee and the amount contributed by the employer in respect of each employee. If such returns are properly scrutinised, the Oﬂice of the Regional Provident Fund Coemmis- sioncr would immediately detect that a particular employer has not deposited his share of the contribution in respect ofa particular employee or employees. This will facilitate the initiation of steps for immediate recovery of employers' share of contribution. Even if the omission on the part of the employer to deposit his share of contribution is detected, the Oﬂice of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner quite often does not initiate any action against the employer. The Regional Provident Fund Com- missioner in the event of default of an employer in making the deposits to the fund has (i) the power to recover the same as provided under Section 8 of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (ii) power to recover damages under Section 14-B of the Act of 1952, and (iii) power to initiate criminal proceedings for prosecution of the defaulting employer under section 14 read with section l4AC of the Act. Time powers are seldom c>.x'erciscd with expedition as a result of which the cinployccs are made to su/fer for no fault of theirs and are deprived of thebencﬁtsof the providentfzxndmcrely on the ground that the employers have not deposited their share ofthe contribution. The Supreme Court in ORGA N0 CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES V. UNION OF INDIA [AIR 1979 SC 1803] had the occasion to consider the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder' The Supreme Court, after setting out the scheme of the Act in brief, which is principally and mainly further welfare of the workers who are employed in factories and other establishments and under which a heavy responsibility is cast on the Regional Provident Fund Commissionners to see that the provisions of the Act and the Scheme are properly followed and complied with, observed :

" . . . . . . . . . . . .This social security measure is a human homage the State pays to Arts. 39 and 41 of the Constitution. The viability of the project depends on the employer duly deducting the workers' contribution from their wages, adding his own little and promptly depositing the nikle into the chest constituted by the Act. The mechanics of the system will suffer paralysis if the employer fails to perform his function. The dyna-

mics of this benﬁcial statute drives its locomotive power from the funds regularly ﬂowing into the statutory till.

lo

3. The pragmatics of the situation is that if the stream of contributions were frozen by employers' defaults after due deduction from the wages and diversion for their own purposes, the Scheme would be damniﬁed by traumatic starvation of the fund, public frustration from the failure of the project and psychic demoralisation of the miserable beneﬁciaries when they ﬁnd their wages deducted and the employer get away with it even after default in his own contribution and malversation of the worhers' share. 'Damages' have a wider socially semantic connotation than pecuniary loss of interest on non-payment when a social welfare scheme.

suffers mayhem on account of injury. Law expands concepts to embrace social needs so as to become functionally effectual".

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in NATHULAL V. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUNDS COMMISSIONER, Indore, [1984 Lab. I.C. 1438] had the occasion to consider the question of entitlement of the employee to payment of the entire amount for the relevant period, that is, his contribution as well as the employer's contri- bution on the failure of the employer to credit the same to the fund. The High Court, after considering the relevant provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed there- under relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court (quoted above), held as un- der :-

" . . . . . . . . . .We are of the opinion that the stand taken by the respon- dents is devoid of any substance because the employee, for no fault of his, cannot be allowed to suﬂer in this manner as he is entitled to the payment of the entire amount for the period for which he has put up his claim in this petition. Obviously, the petitioner had become a mem- ber of the Scheme in the hope that on retirement he would get all his dues as amount from his wages was regularly deducted by the employer and he could have no reason to imagine that the employer might not have remitted his contribution so deducted as also the share of the employer to the said fund because that is one of the allurements to the employee that on retirement in addition to his own contribution he well get' much more by way of contribution of the share of his employer also because in such a case he would not get any pension from the employer but has to depend solely on his provident fund on which his livelihood in future would depend".

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has appealed to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 6909/84 on July 3, 1984 has stayed the operation of the High Court order pending disposal of the appeal. The result is that the employees continue to suffer and are being deprived. of their legitimate right for the failure of the Oﬁice of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners to perform the statutory duties imposed upon them under the Act and the Scheme' framed thereunder. The case of Shri R.A. Swami, mentioned earlier in para 2.5.5 above can be cited to illustrate the problem. Shri Swami has been denied the 35 per cent. of the employer's share since June 1987 on the ground that the employer has not deposited the same;

2.7. Other Causes---In addition to the causes detailed above, there are some other causes which result in the delay in the settlement of cases of provident fund and other retirement dues. These causes, inter alia, are :

(i) Lack of co-ordination and prompt 'action on the part of various depart-

ments of an organisation or on the part of two oﬂices;

(ii) Non-veriﬁcation_of ﬁxation of pay consequent to revision of pay scales;

(iii) Dispute regarding correctness of the amount of provident fund; an

(iv) Identiﬁcation of nominee or legal heirs.

2.7.1. Lack of Ca-ordz'nation---The settlement of claims of provident fund and other retirement dues gets delayed due to lack of co-ordination and prompt action on the part of various departments of an organisation or on the part of two or more offices. The information called for by one department/oﬁice is not supplied in time by the other department/office, as a result of which there is avoidable delay and the employee, his nominee or legal beneﬁciary has to suffer due to non-settlement or late settlement of the claim. Few instances may be quoted in this regard. Shri K. ll Naguri of Guntur retired from the services of A.P. State Road Transport Corphra- tion on July 3], 1987. His claim for provident fund could be ﬁnally settled only in January 1989 for want of record and relevant information. Shri J.R. Gupta of Durg had ;'e.s1'gned from the serivces of M/s. Advm1i~Oerlil<'on Ltd. Raipur on Dec. 28, 1987. His case for prmidcnt fund could be ﬁnally settled only during June 1989 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore, for want of information from the employer as well as 0f'i'ce of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay. One Shri S.S. Sisal retired from the services of M/S. Central Warehousing Corpora- tion on Jan. 29, I988. The intimation of retirement was given to the Trust on May 3l, l988 after a lapse of about four months. The Trust took action on June 24 1988 calling for information from the Unit where the employee was working. The Unit sent information in three instalments on July ll, 1988; July 26, 1988 and December 3, 1988 respectively. Since the information received by the Trust did not appear to be complete, a Telex message was sent on February 17, 1989 seeking in- formation in respect of contributions for a certain period and festival advance etc. advance etc. The lack of co-ordination and prompt action on the part of various ofﬁces, thus resulted in the delay in settlement of the claims. Such a delay could have been avoided and the employees, their nominees or legal heirs could have been saved from the sufferings.

2. 7. 2. Delay in verifying pay ﬁxation on pay revision--Due to pay revisions, the pay of the employees is required to be reﬁxed, In some organisations such pay ﬁxa- tions are required to be veriﬁed by the auditing authorities or some other autho- rities. Consequent to the non-veriﬁcation of the pay ﬁxation, the claims for pro- vident fund and other pensionary dues get delayed. In this regard, the case of Shri A.N. Godbole of Vadodara can be quoted as an illustration. Shri Godbole retired from services of Faculty of Science M.S. University, Baroda, on September 30 1987, His pension has not been ﬁxed though the papers were forwarded to Director of Higher Education on June 28, 1988 on the ground that the ﬁxation of pay in ac- cordance with revised pay scales with effect from January 1, 1986, which is required to be veriﬁed by the otﬁce of the Director of Higher Education, has not been so veriﬁed so far. The work of ver fication of pay ﬁxation is reported to have been started in May 1989. The claim is still pending.

2.7.3. Dispute regarding size of accumulated amount--Sometimes there is a dispute between the Trust/Ofﬁce of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on the one hand and the claimant on the other hand regarding the correctness of the providentfund accumulations. Such a dispute also adds to the delay in the ﬁnali- sation of the claims.

To illustrate, Shri S.Z. Rehman retired from the services of M/S. National Pro- icct Construction Corporation on I-'ebrtiary l, 1988. The Trust called upon the em- ployee to send a stamped receipt of Rs. 11,532. 50 p. The employee disputed the cor- rectness of the amount calculated by the Trust and claimed that the accumulated amount was to the tune of Rs. l3,08",.'-. A break-up of the amount due was sent by the employee to the Trust on August 23, l988. The dispute has not been resolved and the case is still awaiting settlement.

2.7.4. Identiﬁcazion of benefrcim~y----A11other cause for the delay in the settle- ment of the claims is the identiﬁcation of the nominee or the legal beneﬁciaries. Where the employee himself is the claimant. such problem does not arise since the employer always identiﬁes the claimant. The diﬁiculty arises where the claimant is either the nominee or the legal beneﬁciary of the employee There is nothing eit'res° in the Act or in the Scheme framed thereunder for tackling such a situation. As a result, diﬁerent procedures are being adopted in this regard by the concerned autho- rities, namely, employer, the Trust or the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, thereby causing delay in the settlement of cases and hardship to the claimants.

2.8. Having identified the various causes coming to the notice of the Commis-

sion and made appropriate suggesstion, 'the matter regarding other measures required to be adopted in this regard is being addressed hereafter in due course.

93-M/J(N)273MofLJ&CA-2 CHAPTER III MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM--NEED FOR CREATION OF A STATUTORY OMBUDSMAN

3. 1. Material n;.<zai'dirzgpliglzt o_f'suﬂ"ering employees gatl2ered~ln order to carry- out post-audit of this Act and the Scheme framed thererunder, the same being a benevolent socio-economic legislation, the Commission issued a press release on Dec. 20, 1988 [Appendix 'E'] inviting all concerned who had not received the provident fund and retiremental dues for more than one year to furnish relevr»-.nt particulars in order to apprise the Commission of their plight. The material gathered by the Commission on the basis of complaints received in response to the press note issued by it reveals thata lemenlable state of affairs prevails in the sphere of (lisbursement of provident fund accumulations, etc. Out of a total of 481 complaints received by the Commission, I39 cases were resolved within appr0i.\'mately three months of the matter being taken up by the Commiss."on with the concerned ai!?l10I'lIi£'.S'. On an ana- lysis of the data relating to these cases where delay was apparently unjustified, an extremely unaesthetic picture emerges :-

Extent of delay involved Number of cases Maximum 21 years, Minimum 10 years . . . . . . . . 7 Maximum 10 years, Minimfim 6 years . . . . . . . . 25 Maximum 6 years, Minimum 4 years . . . . . . . . 15 Maximum 4 years, Minimum 2 years i . . . . . . . . 32 Less than 2 years . . . . . ; . . . . . . 60 Total . Mﬁlﬁ?"

(Full details pertaining to these 139 cases are embodied in Appendix 'F'].

.3 . 2. Categories of empl0yers----Tl1ese cases of delay relate to employers and cs- tabhshments (1) covered by the Act and the Scheme (Unexempted as also Exempted) as also (2) not covered by the Act and the Scheme. The break up is as under 2- Covered Not covered Total 96 43 139 Exempted Unexempted 25 71 [Reference may be made to Appendix 'F' for details] _3.3. Questions wlziclz arise-----In the background traced hereinabovc, the fol- lowing questions raise their heads 2--

(1) Is it just or fair to make a retired employee or the beneﬁciaries claiming under a dead employee to wait for many many years (at times more than 10 years even up to 2] years) ?

(2) Is the extant machinery adqauate to resolve the problem '.7 '_l'he answers to questions No. 1 and 2 are implicit therein. The presnt situation is intolerable and the present machinery is wholly inadequate. What then should be done ?

12 13

3.4.1.. Need for creating a monitoring agency .' An 0mbu(lsman--«The Com- l"CllS'%'i0l'. is firmly of the opinion that the problem has arisen essentially because of the nhsctzcc 0/"u monitoring agency to oversee the working of the existing disbursment /."l(!('lll.'I(~'}'_1'.

3.4.2. It needs to be emphasised that as many as 139 cases were resolved within approximately 3 months of the taking up of the matter by the Commission. Two coiicliisions follow :~--

(l) There was culpable apathy to do the needful on the part of the disbursing ant/tority. Else how were cases pending for 5, 10, 15 or 20 years resolved within /zearly 3 man/ths '.' (2) Such a situation would not have arisenlzf there had existed a monitorsing agency to oversee, goad, if necessary guide, and to issue appropriate di- rections whenever called for.

3.4.3. The urgent need for creating such an agency, Ombudsman, is therefore real, and seljievident.

3.4.4. Profile of the proposed oﬁice of Provident Fund Ombudsman.

CONSTITUTION AND SET UP I In order to invest the oﬂice with appropriate stature, authority and dignity, the oﬂlce shall be created by a Parliamentary statute and be manned preferably by a retired C/u'efJustice ofa High Court or in any event at least by a retired High Court Judge who shall hold office for 3 years from the date of taking charge. He shall be entitled to the remuneration and privileges enjoyed by him immediately before his retirement.

II He shiill be assistetl by a deputy Ombudsman of the rank of a retired district and sessions judge and by the requisite staff.

III He shall be provided with a computer to enable him to analyse the data furnished in the returns and to make his monitoring eﬂective.

POWERS The Ombudsman in order to be effective should have powers :--

V I to monitor crises of (l('l(I_l'S in disbursements throughout the territories of India.

II to monitor cases of all employers and establishments, viz.,----

(i) establishments covered by the Act and the Schemes;

(ii) covered establishments to which exemptions have been granted under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Schemes;

(iii) employers and establishments not covered by the Act or the Schemes such as Public Sector undertakings having their own scheme and other statutory corporations of like nature.

III to act suo motu as also the power to act on the basis of complaints received from em- ployees or their nominees or the beneﬁcieries under the Act and the Schemes. IV He shall have power to call for information concerning matters where disbursement have not been made or delayed and to insist on the timely submission of inscribed returns.

V He shall have the power to issue appropriate directions to secure compliance by the concerned authorities to enable him to Uiscliargc the duty to ensure prompt disburse-

ment of dues.

DUTIES I It shall be the duty of the Ombudsman to ensure that the disbursements of the claims to retired employees or their nominees or beneﬁciaries (as the case may be) and others entitled to Claim payment are made promptly and in any case within the time bracket of six months regardless of whether or not speciﬁc complaint has been made to him by the concerned employee.

II It shall be his duty to invite complaints regarding non-payment of provident fund accumulation in order to apprise himself of such instances by way of----

(a) advertisements in appropriate regional daily newspapers in English and in regional languages in all States every six months;

(b) announcements over Radio and T. V. in all states in English and regional languages every sizx months.

III T 0 take cognizance suo motu as also on the basis of complaints received in response to such invitations or otherwise and to take appropriate steps to secure disbursements in such cases with promptitude by getting in touch with the appropriate authority. And seek information as regards the cause for the delay and to issue appropriate directions to remove the bottleneck and to ensure compliance.

IV It shall be his duty to call for returns and information regarding claims pending with the concerned establishments, scrutinize the returns submitted to him, and to take appropriate suo motu action and to issue appropriate directions to the concerned au- thorities to ensure prompt payment to the claimants with the end in View to ensure that no claim remains outstanding for more than 3 months.

3.4.5. Provisions required to be made in order to enable the Ombudsman to ex- ercise the powers and to discharge the duties----As the Ombudsman will be responsible for ensuring that Provident Fund and other retirement/death benefits are paid to the beneﬁciary as far as possible within three months from the date the same become payable, provisions to the following effect are required to be made----

(i) Every employer having a provident fund scheme shall furnish a return [Appendices HI and HII] on a prescribed proforma, to the Ombudsman every month by the 15th of each month detailing therein the cases of delay beyond three months, setting out the necessary particulars of each case, and explaining the causes of delay.

(ii) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioners and the Trustees of Pro- vident Fund trusts in the case of exempted organisations, shall furnish a return, on a prescribed proforma [Appendices HI and H111], to the Ombudsman on the 15th of January, 15th of April, 15th of July and 15th of October every year detailing therein the cases which could not be disposed of and settled within three months from the date the amount became payable setting out and explaining the causes of delay. The Ombudsman will have the authority to issue appropriate directions to ensure urgent settlement of the claims.

(iii) The Ombudsman shall monitor the cases of delay beyond three months, the cases of default in depositing the amount by the employers either in respect of their own contribution or in respect of employees' contribution or both and shall issue appropriate directions in this regard to the concerned oﬂicer, authority or the em- ployer. The Ombudsman will have the authority to call for any further l5 information from the concerned oﬂicer, authority or employer as he may deem ﬁt and proper.

(iv) The wilful default or l'ailure on the part of the concerned oﬁicer or au- thority or the employer to furnish requisite return and/or information which may be sought by the Ombudsman or the failure on the part of the concerned ofﬁcer, authority or the employer to carry out the direc- tions isssued by the Ombudsman within the stipulated time without suﬂi- cient cause shall be an offence punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to six months or with ﬁne which may extend to Rs. 5,000} or both. Such an offence should be bailable, cogni- zuble and triable by any Magistrate having the jurisdiction.

3.4.6. Suitable legislation----F01' creating the office of Ombudsman, it is re- commended that suitable legislation maybe enacted to ensure that the oﬁ7ce enjoys statutory authority and powers to monitor and to issue appropriate enforceable direc- tions for settling claims relating to payment of provident fund dues expeditiously.

We recommend accordingly.

CHAPTER IV OTHER MEASURES COMMENDED OR EXPEDITING PAYMENi'E>' OF PROVIDENT FUND ACCUMULATIONS TO THE BENEFICIARIES 4.1.1. Besides the creation of the institution of an ombudsman as recommend- ed in Chapter III, certain other measures are also required to be undertaken in order to cut short, if not totally wipe out, the delays in the settlement of cases of provident fund and other pensionary beneﬁts and to ameliorate the hardship being faced by the employees, their nominees or legal beneﬁciaries due to such delays.

4.l.lA. Employees should be made aware----The delay being caused due to non-submission, late submission or defective or incomplete submission of the claim applications is mainly due to the ignorance of the employees, their nominees or legal heirs, It is also necessary to minimise the number of cases in which either no nominat- ion is mde or the nomination made is not reviewed with the change in the circumstan- ces. The employees generally do not know the necessity of making or reviewing the nomination. With a view to make the working of the scheme effective it requires to be provided that all employees on becoming members of the fund shall be issued pass books in respect of the monthly contributions made by the employer and the employee. The pass book should apprise the employees as regards (l) the power to revoke or alter nominations, (2) conditions for taking loans, (3) essential particulars required to be furnished for making claims so that applications are free from defects. This course will to a great extent reduce and minimise the delays caused due to non- nomination or non-availability of the nominees.

4. 1.2. Withholding payments for reasons not warrnted by law and in violation of spirit of Section 10--need for remedial amena'ment----The Legislature has extended unqualiﬁed immunity to the provident fund accumulations from being attached in respect of any debt inucurred by an employee and has gone to the length of providing that the said amount shall not be capable of being assigned or charged. The Legislature has also provided that on the death of an employee, in case there is a nominee, the amount will vest' unto the nominee free from any debt or liability incurred by the employee before his death, subject only to deductions authorised by the Scheme or the rules of the concerned provident fund. Nothwithstanding this immunity embodied in section 10 of the Act, it has been noticed that the amount of provident fund is often being withheld by the employers pending vacation of residential accommodation allotted to the employee by the employer. This course is not authorised by law and is against the very spirit of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. For, withhold- ing on such a ground virtually amounts to attachment of the amount in question cr bringing illegal pressure.

4.1.3. Even though there is no provision in the Act or the Scheme framed thereunder for withholding provident fund claims on such a ground, the Bombay High Court in Kareparambil v. Air India" refused to grant relief in its writ jurisdiction to the petitioners, whose amount of provident fund was withheld by the employer (Air India Corporaton) on the ground that they had not vacated the residential accommodation allotted to them. The High Court held that in case the Court permits such employees to seek relief under article 226 of the Constitution, then it would merely promote dishonestly. It is perhaps not realised that more often than nought it is not a case of dishonest conduct but a case of helplessness to secure accommodation in these times of acute housing shortage and steep rise in prices of properties and in rents. Taking shelter under the judgmentof the Bombay High Court, the employers withhold the payment of the amount of provident fund till the oﬂicial residential accommodation is vacated by the employees. To quote)by way of an illustration, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, relying on the judgement of the Bombay High Court, has taken a policy decision not to release the retirement dues to its employees till the complete charge of all belongings of the Corporation it handed over by the employees. While the conduct of the employees in refusng or failing to vacate the ofﬁcial residential accommodation or to hand over the charge of the other belongings of the employer when called upon to do so, cannot be approved 16 17 it cannot be gamsaid that the release and payment of the amount of provident fund cannot be allowed to be withheld on this ground. Apart from the fact that there is no authority in law for doing so, it would be violative of the spirit of section_lO of the Act and in negation of the legislative intent manifest in the pI'OVS10n. Besides, in a sense it would be counter-productive in as much as it would operate as a hurdle in the way of the concerned employee acquiring an alternative accommodation with the aid of the said resources. So also the insistence on 'No Demand Certiﬁcate' has no justiﬁcation since no deduction can be made from the P.F. accumulations unless provided by the Scheme or the rules of the Fund. Moreover, the ofﬁcial authorised to grant such a certiﬁcate is under no obligation 01 compulsion to issue it urgently or even within a reasonable time frame. The Commission, is thereﬂ2re, of the view that it needs to be provided by way of an Explanation to Section l0 that no part of the provident fimd sahall be withheld by the employers pending vacation of the oﬁleial residential accommodation by the employee or pending the production of " No Demand Certiﬁcate)"

4. l .4. Enabling the emp/o_1'ee to apply directly to the C onz/nissioner and incor- porating a time limit for transmitting the clims to the Commissioner.~Under the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder the claim for ﬁnal payment of the amount of the provident fund is required to be made by the employee, his nominee or the legal heirs, as the case may be, to the employer for onward transmission to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or the Trust after veriﬁcation and attestation. It has been noticed during the course of on-the-spot study of the records of some organisations that a number of cases get delayed only due to inaction on the part of the employers A reference in this regard be made sub-paragraph (5) of Paragraph 72 ofthe Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Clauses (a), (c) and (d) of sub-paragraph (5) para- graph 72, read as under 2- "(a) Every employer shall, at the time when a member of the Fund leaves the service, be required to get the claim application, for payment of provident fund in cases speciﬁed in clauses (a) to (dd) of sub-pa1'a-

graph (1) of paragraph 69, duly ﬁlled in and attested, and to forward the said application to the Commissioner or any other ofﬁcer autho- rised by him in this behalf.

(b) x x x x

(c) Every employer shall, on the death of the member and on receipt of an applicaton for receiving the amount standing to the credit of such member, forward forthwith the said application to the Commissioner or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf.

(d) If the applicant is unable to send the claim app,-'/"cation through the the emplo_;'er or duly attested by him., for any reason whatsoever, he may forxvard it to the Commissioner or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, and wherever necessary, the Commissoner, or any other nfilccr authorised by him in this behalf, may forward such application to the employer and the employer shall be required to return it within ﬁve days of its receipt."

[Emphasis supplied]

4. l .5. Under clause (d) of sub-para 5 of Para 72, a claimant is required to submit his claim to the employer and it is only when he is unable to do so that an application can be made directly to the Commissioner or the Trust. It has been noticed that almost invariably when an application is directly made to the Commissioner, the same is returned to the claimant with the observation that the same should be submitted through the employer. This leads to unnecessary and avaoidable delay. The Commiss- ion feels that the provisions contained in clause (d) ofsub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 72 should be amended and it needs to be provided that the applicant may send the appli- cation directly to the Commissioner or the Trust, as the case may be. The amended provisions may read as under :---

"An applicant may submit his application to the Commissioner or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, and wherever necessary, the Commissioner or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, may forward such application to the employer and the employer shall be required to return it within five days of its receipt."

4.1.6. The amendments asproposcdhereinabove when introduced will not only minimise the delay in the settlement of cases due to inaction on the part of the em- ployers but will also to a great extent remove the blockade in the settlement of claims caused due to non-vacation of residciitizalaccommodation and non--production of 'No Demand Certiﬁcate' by the employees since they will have the right to approach the Commissioner or the Trust directly.

4.2. Except when prohibited by a couri'. pa ymcnt slzoi./la' not be withheld merely because someone else objects--Para graphs 69 of the Scheme of 1952 provides for the disbursement of the provident fund amount to the employee while Paragraph 70 provides for payment of the provident fund accumulations in the case of a decease employee either to the nominee or legal beneﬁciaries of the deceased as the case may be. The employer has to process the case in terms of either Paragraph 69 Paragrph

70. Similarly, the Trust of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has to settle the claim and pay the amount in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 69 or Paragraph 70, as the-ase may be. Neither the employer nor the Trust nor the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner can stopsthe settlement of the claim and payment to the claimant entitled under the Scheme to receive such amount on an objection raised by a third party. As pointed out earlier, instances of settlement of the claims being kept in abeyance on more objection of a third party are not lacking. there is no provision either in the Act or in the Scheme framed therein authorising such a course. The Commission feels that though the provisions are quite clear, out of abundant caution an Explanation needs be added under Paragraphs 69 and 70 to the eﬂect that save and except under the orders ofa Court, the payment of the Pro- vident Fund accumulations shall not be withheld on an objection being raised by a third party and the amount should be paid to the claimant in terms of Paragraph 69 and Paragraph 70, as the case may be.

4.3. Payment not to be withheld on the ground of pendency of disciplinary pro- ceedings---Pendency of disciplinary proceedings is one of 'the causes for the dalay in the settlemeng of provident fund claims. The employers normally'stop proceessin g the claims till thesdisciplinary proceedings are concluded. This course is inconsistent with'the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. Even if, as a result of 'the'enquiry, the'employee is found guilty of misconduct and some amount is found recoverable fromshim, such amount cannot be deducted from his provident fund accumulations in view of the speciﬁc provisions contained in section 10 of the Act. Thoughsthe recommendation made by the Commission in pa a 4.1.5 above for the amendment of cluse (d) of sub-paragraph (5) of Paragraph 72 providing for direct submission of thesclaim application by thesclaimant to the Trust or the Regional Provident Commissioner will to a great extent minimise the delay caused on 'such a the Commission feels that it needs to be clarified by way of an Explanation under section 10 that the amount of provident fund accumulations shall not be withheld on the ground of pemlency of disciplinary proceedings.

4.4. Withholding of RF. dues on account of e.'nployer"5'failure to deposit his own or the employees share already deducted from their salary : P,um's/ting the employees for the crime of the employer and for the gross negligence of the depa/'tment--The object of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is to make some provisions for the future of the worker after he retires or for his de- pendents in the cae of his early and untimely death. The Act and the Scheme framed thereunder have made adequate provisions and the Provisiodent Fund Commissioners have been given adequate powers to see that the provisions thereof are properly complied with and that the share of the employee deducted from his salary/ wages as also the share contributed by the employer is credited to the Fund account so that on retirement of the employee or in the case of his untimely death while in service, his dependants, are immediately beneﬁted. It has been noticed that in a number of cases the settlement of the claims is delayed on the ground that the employer has failed to deposit his contribution or the employee's share in the fund account. In this regard the oﬂlce of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner cannot escape blame. There is inaction and failure to perform statutory duties on the part of the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissiner. As pointed out earlier, under paragraph 38(1) of the Scheme of 1952, each employer is under a legal obligation to pay the employees' contribution together with his own contribution, to the fund by separate bank drafts or cheques on account of contributions. Paragraph 38(2) further provides that the employer shall forward to the Commissioner, wthin twenty-five days of the close of the month, a monthly consolidated statement, in such form as the Commissioner may specify, showing recoveries made from the wages of each employee and the 19 amount contributed by the employer in respect of each employee. The returns so submitted are sometimes incomplete or ince:'i'ect. Due to lack of proper scrutiny in the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the mistakes or omissions are not note cd. These omissions, etc., are detected ony when a claim is processed. If there is a proper and regular scrutiny of the return submitted by theemployers then the cases where the employers have not deposited their share of the contributions can be easily detected and action can be taken by the Reoional Provident Fund Commiss- ioner for the recovery of such amount well in time.

4.5.1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in the event of the default ofan employer in ma king the deposits; in the fund, has the following powers under the Act of 1952 as amended by Act No. 33 of 1988 '

(i) Power to recover the amount under section 8;

(ii) Power to recover damages under section 14-B, not exceeding the amount found in arrears ;

(iii) Power to initiate criminal proceedings for the prosecution of the defaulting employer under sectrorr 14 read with section l4AC of the Act.

(iv) Power to recover from tlze employer of establishment inter alia by seizure and sale of his properties under revently added sections 8A to 8G of the Act.

lnspite of the speciﬁc powers so conferred upon the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, such powers are rarely exercised promptly and timely as a result of which the employees suffer due to no fault of theirs. It is pertinent to note that every employee employed in or in connection with the work of a factory of other establishment to which the Scheme 1952 applies is required to become a member of the Fund. The requirement of being a member is mandatory. No employee can refuse to become a member of the fund and to contribute a part of his wages, minimum compulsory contribution being 8.33 per cent. of the wages, to the fund. Therefore, it is all the more essential that his rights and interests should be protected and he should not be made to suffer for the fault of others. It was mainly for these reasons that the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nathu Lal's case held that whole, of the amount becoming due to an employee in his provident fund must be paid to him irrespective of the fact whether the employer has deposited his share or not. However as pointed out earlier, the operation of the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court has been stayed in appeal on July 3 1984. Whether or not the High Court decision is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, it appears to be unjust and unfair to make the innocent and helpless employees suffer for the fault of the employers to make the deposit and for the fault of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in failing to take immediate and prompt action against the defaulters in accordance with law.

4. 5.2. The Commission is of the opinion that the Act and the Scheme requires to be amended by incorporating a provision to the eﬂect that the P.F. dues of an employee payable to him on his retirement or on his becoming eligible to recover the dues otherwise or to this nominee or beneﬁcaries under the Scheme on his death shall not be withheld on the ground of failure of the emp/oyerto deposit his own share or the employee's share deducted from his wages or bot/1----There is more than ample Justiﬁcation for doing so, viz.,--

(1) Under the Act and the Scheme an obligation has been imposed and the power and legal authority to ensure (and enforce) compliance has been vested exclusively unto the P.F. authorities.

(2) The employees have not been invested with any power or authority to secure compliance. They have no weapon, machinery or means to do so under- law and the totally helpless even when the authorities on whom the powers are conferred are guilty of wilful failure or culpable negligence to dis- charge their duties and to take appropriate steps under the law promptly and effectively. There is therefore no rational or moral justification to make them suﬂer.

(3) The Act and the Scheme has been enacted as a social security measure for the welfare of the workers and cannot authorise deprivation of the fruits of the beneﬁcial legislation for no fault on their part. -

(4) The law authorises deduction from the wages of employees (which re- present the hard earned earning by the sweat of their brow) on the- representation and assurance implicit in the Act and the Scheme that their future will be taken care of. Instead of paying more wages to enable the employees to make savings on their own. the law authorises deduction from their wages and imposes acorresponding obligation on the employers to make their contribution as provided by the law. And the P.F. organi- sation is statutorily enjoined to eﬂ"ectuate the intendment and purpose of the law as an administering agency. For the failure of this agency. the employees cannot be penalised.

There is also another signiﬁcant aspect which deserves to be stressed in this context. A Special Reserve Fund was created on September 15, 1960 out of the Reserve and Forfeiture Account of the fund to help outgoing members or their nominees/heirs, where an employer of unexempted establishment has failed to pay the whole or part of the provident fund contribution due to the fund. The terms of assistance from this fund have changed from time to time. As per the decision of the Central Government dated Marc/z 10, 1965. the assistance is available to the extent only of employees' share of contribution recovered from his wages by the em- ployer but not paid to tile fund plus interest thereon. No part of the employers' contri- bution, not received in the fund, is to be paid out of this fund.

lt appears that till the issuance of the orders of the Central Government on March 10, 1965, even the employers' share, which was not received in the provident fund account, was also being paid out of the reserve fund to the employees. The reason why such employers' share has been excluded from the assistance to be rendered out of the Reserve Fund vide orders dated March 10, 1965 is not known. The Madhya _ Pradesh High Court in Nathu La1's case has speciﬁcally held that the RPFC is bound to pay the whole of the amount of the fund to the employees irrespective of the fact whether the employer has failed to deposit his or employees' or both the_ shares of the contribution.

The 36th Annual Report of the C.P.F.C. for 1988-89 (see page 44-45) shows that a very large sum of Rs. 159.02 crores was lying at the credit of Forfeiture Account out of which only a sum of Rs.2.50 crores was transferred to Special Reserve Fund. Only Rs. 23.79 lakhs were paid to employees from this Account. The huge amount. of Rs. 159 crores plus can be utilized for this purpose. So also the surplus adminis- trative charges, inspection charges and penal charges of Rs. 11.69 crores under EPF and FPF Schemes and Rs. 14.99 crores under the Insurance Scheme as per- the aforesaid 36th Report can be utilised for the purpose of satisfying claims arising in the context of past defaults. And for future defaults, there can be no excuse since now, by the newly added provisions of sections 8A to 8G inter alia empowering the oﬁicers of the organisation itself to recover the arrears by seizure and sale of the pro- perties of the defaulter if there are arrears remaining unrecovered, the department alone is to blame. IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY UNFAIR FOR A WELFARE STATE TO MAKE THE EMPLOYEES SUFFER FOR THE FAULT OR FAILURE OF THE P.F.ORGANISATION:

A provision in this behalf is required therefore to be specifically made in sub-para (1) of paragraph 72 of the Scheme of 1952. The words "irrespective of the fact whether any part of the employees' or the employers' or both the contributions have not been paid into the Fund by the employer" {are required to be added in sub-para (1) of para- graph 72 after the words "it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to make prompt payment as provided in this Scheme" and before the sign and words"(.) In case there is no nominee." and to make it retrospective.

In case it entails some ﬁnancial burden on the organisation, it may be possible to neutralise this burden by making a slight increase in the tiny administrative charges which are presently ﬁxed at 0. 37% of the wages under the EPF Scheme and 0.01 'X, for the insurance Scheme or by imposing a very small charge generally on all the establishments covered by the Act which may be recovered along with every instal- ment of the employer's contribution in order to constitute a sort of an insurance pool so as to provide the ﬁnancial resources to meet this obligation. A provision may also be made making negligence on the part of the concerned oﬁicers to take urgent steps under the Act and the Scheme to recover arrears from the employer "serious misconduct" entailing dismissal or removal from service so that the concerned oﬂlcers discharge their duties honestly and diligently. ' ..'cquer.t cause for the delay in the settlement of provident rand as to production of a Succession Certiﬁcate even though ' .=nd-:22: the law to be produced (see para 2. 5. 7). The employers

-- , " r the production of a Succession Certiﬁcate whenever a :g.- legztl l':e::eﬁciaries of an employee. The Regional Provident

-'xi;-sit>,~,;;~ «yr the Trust is bound to pay the provident fund accumula- timis in iisspcct of a deceased employee in terms of Paragraph 70 of the Sclternc of !952, tliut is. to the nominee in case there is a valid nomination or in the absence of :1 wzziici nomination to the family members of the deceased as deﬁned in ch'-Lise (gel of Pamgrapii 2 of the Scheme, read with the provision to clause (ii) of A ' ,, ecpzetl siiuresi. in case there is not valid nomination and no family .-. " " deceased employee, the amount of provident fund is then payable to the person legally er tied to it. As observed earlier (para 2.5.7), the Succession Ce:'tiﬁc:;te can be called i?;.r only in cases of genuine dilﬁculty falling under clause

(iii) of Pa ra gr-a p31 70 cf the Scheme. Besides, it is only the deciding authority, namely, the Rllglﬂlléli Fir». ident Fuiiri Cenunissioner or the Trust, who can call for the pro-

(l1:<.t:'or. of Succession Ccrtiiicate. The employers cannot stop processing the cases and call for production of a Succession Certiﬁcate.

to 7 In so flu' (in the calling for a Succession Certiﬁcate by the Trust or the ";:;7*l v ~'3'V'i'\l';'.li ru 'J Comrnissioner is concerned, though speciﬁc instructions ii tr incd in ilL1l'8._ ,. l' 15, H6 and H7 of Chapter 111, Part 11 of Manual of . ccounting Procedure (Vol. I), Lmployees' Provident Fund Organisation, such instructions are not heing strictly complied with and it appears that a Succession Cciiiiiczite is l~»:f "lg cg ﬁled for in it routine manner even in respect of the cases falling un:.i-..' clause (ii .' Paragmpli 72 of the Scheme of I952. The Commission recom- i,iI('iI/.1/S that the z)zsi;'::c'tioiz.:' contained in Paragraphs 115, 116 and 117 of Chapter 3 of Manual of Accouiztiiig Procedure (Vol. I) should be incorporated in the Scheme of 1952 itself so as to give it statutory shape, and speciﬁally provide that save and except in the cases falling under clause (iii) of Paragraph 72 of the Scheme of 1952, a S2/cca.vsio.'z C'o"Iiﬁcatc shall not be called for.

-\ 4.7. S.="mrtz.:ge o_/' .'3'taj,{/".--Oiie of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners, amcly, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Calcutta, has mentioned shortage of stall" to be one of the reasons for the delay in the settlement of provident fund claims. No further information was supplied as to whether at any time a demand v.-as iiiede by him 10 the Central Oﬁice for the augmentation of the staff strength, and, if so, the r'e<;ult th<::cot'. The necessary staff strength of all the oﬂicers of the Regional i'reyid<;-r.t ii'-and Coininissioneis is required to be reviewed and augmented, wherever iiecessmxy, keeping in V'lC'-iv' the ever-increasing workload in such offices.

4.8. Lac/c of cc--9rdi;2ation and prompt action on the part of various Depart- inents of an organisation or on the part of two offices also causes delay in the settle- ment of provident fund claims. It has been observed that the correspondence calling for addition;-.1 iiifeiimzttioii, etc, by one oﬂlce from another oﬁice is not being attended to with due di..p;r.tch (see letter quoted in para 1.5). The Commission feels that with the setting up of the institution of Ombudsman, the problem being caused due to lack of co--or-:lination and prompt action on the part of various authorities \'=.«ill be minimised to a great extent.

4.9. Noiz-veriﬁcation of pay ﬁxation.--The settlement of the provident fund claims and other retirement dues also gets delayed due to the non-veriﬁcation of the pay ﬁxation. The case of Shri Godbole (para 2.7.2) is a glaring example of such a case. The Commission feels that some time limit should be ﬁxed within which the pay ﬁxation consequent upon the revision of the scales or any other eventuality which necessitates the reﬁxation of pay and wherever such ﬁxations or reﬁxation are required to be veriﬁed by the Auditing or other authorities, should be so veriﬁed. No employee can be made to suffer for the failure of the concerned authorities in carrying out the necessary veriﬁcation. In this regard, it is felt that time-limit of 3 months would be quite reasonable for carrying out the necessary veriﬁcations and in case for any reason the necessary veriﬁcation cannot be completed within the stipulated period _of 3 moizths, me employee must be granted interim relief by settling his claims regarding provident fund or other retirement dues on interim basis Within 15 days item the expiry of the period of 3 months.

4. l0 Payment of undisputed portion ofclaims--Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 72 of the Scheme of I95? speciﬁcally provides that if any portion of the amount which has become payable is in dispute or doubt, the Commissioner shall make prompt payment of that portion ofthe amount in regard to which there is no dispute or doubt, the balance being adjusted as soon as possible. A similar duty is cast upon the Trust in the case of exempted organisations. In spite of the speciﬁc provision in this regard. instances are not lacking where in the case of a dispute regarding the correctness of the amount due, the authorities have failed to pay even the amount in respect of which there is no dispute. the provison as contained in sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 72 should be strictly complied with and the failure to do so should be treated as "major misconduct" entailing punishment including dismissal from service or reduction to lower rank.

4. l I. Identiﬁcation of beneﬁciary---Another general problem with which the claimants are faced and which also adds to the delay in the settlement of pro- vident fund claims is the difﬁculty of identiﬁcation of the nominee or legal beneﬁ- ciaries of a deceased employee. Paragraph 82 of Chapter III, Part II of Manual of Accounting Procedure (Vol. I) of 'the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation provides that the claim application should be attested and forwarded by the employer under whom the member was last employed and if a member is unable to send the application either through the employer or duly attested by him for any reason what- soever, he may forward the claim duly signed in the presence of any one of 'the autho- rised ofﬁcers detailed therein and attested by him. This provision does not solve the problem. Since the claim applications are to be forwarded and attested by the'em- ployer, and they insist upon speciﬁc identiﬁcation of the claimant. It may therefore be provided in the Scheme itself that a photograph of the claimant attested by any one of the persons speciﬁed in para 82 of Chapter II of 'the Manual of Accounting Procedue of Employees Provident Fund Organisation will suffice. In so far as the identiﬁcation of the legal heirs is concerned, it needs to be provided that any one of the persons detailed in paragraph 82 of Chapter I II of Manual of Accounting of 'the Employees Provident Fund Organisation enclosed along with the claim appli- cation should suffice and no other or further identiﬁcation of the claimant would be necessary or insisted upon.

4. 12. Need for cultivating sympathetic attitude with desire to assist the claimant.--- So often claims preferred by the claimants are rejected in an arbitrary fashion exhibi- ting total back of sympathy for the claimant in distress and sensitivity for his or her suﬂering. These remarks are more than warranted in the light of the observations of the Gujarat High Court in Imambhai v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.'--

"3. A few observations regarding the working in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner are called for having regard to the facts revealed by the present petition. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has passed a one line order rejecting the application of the petitioner without examining the matter in depth, without holding any inquiry and without considering the question with the seriousness that it deserves. It ought to have been realised that the claim was being made by a nominee of a deceased workmanand by the very nature of things, he could not be expected to incur legal expenditure in order to secure his claim. Such matters are required to be dealt with sympathetically and in the right spirit, that is to say, informed with a desire to be helpful. There should not be an anxiety to reject without a close scrutiny and drive the applicant to seek relief in a Court of law. If the Department were to function in this manner the whole object of the benevolent legislation would be defeated. Rejecting the application is the last thing that the competent authority would be expected to do and not the ﬁrst thing on the slightest pretext. Before rejecting the claim the competent quthority would be required to afford an opportunity to the applicant in regard to any aspect which, in the opinion of the competent authority, creates a hurdle in the way of the applicant who is entitled to the amount standing at the applicant who is entitled to the amount standing at the credit of the deceased workman. lfneeessary, the competent authority could also seek legal advice in order to re-assure himself: But, in any case, he must not ' )9 in a haste to reject the application as has been done in the present case without holding any inquiry and without examining the matter closely and carefully. "

We accordingly recommend that a provision should be made obliging the competent authority--

(I) to exanzine the claim ofa claimant carefully and sympathetically in depth with the anxiety to afford relief, if possible, instead of evmcmg hurry to dispose of claim by rejecting it.

and providing that (2) no claim shall be rejected without hearing a claimant and passing a reasoned order, a copy of which shall be served on the claimantfree of cost.

(3) gross negligence or callous indiﬂerence shown by any oﬁicer resutling in unwarranted delay in making payment to a claimant should be treated as serious misconduct liable to entail dismissal or removal of the concerned official from service.

4.13. Exempted organisotions--There are two types of exempted organisations. One class of exempted organisation is the organisation to which though provisions of Act of 1952 are applicable, the Scheme framed thereunder is not applicable. Such organisations are permitted to frame their own Schemes. Such types of organisations are exempted under section 17 of the Act of 1952. Though such exempted organisations are free to frame their own schemes and such schemes are normally framed on the lines of the scheme of 1952 framed under the Act, there is no speciﬁc provision in the Act requiring such exempted organisations to get the scheme framed by them approved by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner with an eye on incorporating the safeguards provided by the Act and the Scheme therein. The only requirement under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act of 1952 is that the bene- fits allowed to the employees of the exempted organisations should not be less favourable than the beneﬁts being allowed to the employees to whom the Scheme of 1952 is applicable. The Law Commission feels that a specific provision should be incorporated in the Act of 1952 making it obligatory for the organisations exempted from the operation of the Scheme of 1952 under section 17 of the Act to obtain speciﬁc approval of their schemes from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned from the aforesaid stand point.

Another category of exempted organisations are those to whom the provisions of the Act of 1952 are not applicable either by virtue of section 1(3) or section 16 of the Act. To quote as an illustration, Entry No. 12 of Appendix 1 to the Act of 1952 provides that the provisions of the Act shall be applicable to all trading and commercial establishments engaged in purchase, sale or storage of any goods including establishments of exporters,importers, advertisers, commission agents and brokers and" commodity and stock exchanges but not including bank or Ware- houses established under any Central or State Act. One of such organisations is the Central Warehousing Corporation. Since this Corporation is not governed by the Act of 1952 and'the Scheme framed thereunder, it has framed its own regulations Shown as "The Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Provident Fund Regulations 1962". Though primarily the provisions contained in these Regulations are similar to the provisions contained in the Scheme of 1952, there is a major de- parture in so far as the question of payment of interest on Provident Fund accummu- lations is concerned. Under paragraph 60 of the Scheme of l952, the interest on provident fund accummulation is payable up to the end of the month preceding the date on which the ﬁnal payment is authorised irrespective of the date of the receipt of the claim from the claimant concerned. In other words, even if it has taken 10 year in the settlement of the claim, the claimant is entitled to and is paid, the interest for the period for which the case has remained unsettled. On the other hand, Regulation No. l4of the Central Warehousing Regulations. 1962 provides that interest on all sums standingin the books of the Fund to the credit of a subscriber shall cease on the day on which he leaves the service of the Corporation or on the date of his death, whichever is earlier. Under the Regulations governing the employees of the Central Warehousing Corporation, if the amount of the provi- dent fund accummulation has remained unpaid pending the ﬁnal settlement of the claim, the employer or the Trust will not be liable to pay any interest. The interest which the employer may earn on the amonut belonging to the subscriber will go to the employer himself which will result in unjust enrichment of the employer. If such a provision is allowed to ramain, the possibility of employer intentionayly delaying the payment to the claimant and thereby earning interest over the money which does not belong to him cannot be ruled out. The Commission is of the firm \ 24 opinion that the provisions similar to the one contained in Regulation 14 of the Central Warehousing Corporation Employees' Provident Fund Regulation 1962 virtually authorising denial of interest from the date of leaving the service of Corporation or death, whichever is earlier, till the end of the month preceding date of ﬁnal payment should be deleted forthwith and substituted by a provision similar to the one contained in paragraph 60(2)(b) of the Scheme of 1952. Further, Regulation No. 15(2) of the Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Provident Fund Regulation 1962 provides that subject to the directions of Executive Committee, the whole or any part of the employers'contribution together with interest credited in respect there of may be deducted from the total amount standing to the credit of a subscriber. Such deduction can be made if the employee has been dismissed or removed from employ- ment in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings taken against him or if the employee has voluntarily left his employment within 5 years of his entry into service other- wise than on account of ill-health or other unavoidable causes. The corresponding ' provision contained in the Act and the Scheme has already been deleted recently.

Regulation 15(2) must also accordingly be repealed or deleted. Regulation 15(3) further provides that the employees' share together with interest shall not be payable except with the approval of the Managing Director. Both these provisions are, on the face of it, opposed to the policy under which the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscel- laneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed under it came to be enacted. Section 10 of the Act clearly provides that the Provident Fund accummulations shall not be subject to any deductions or attachment, etc. Moreover, neither any guidelines nor any limit has been prescribed for the deduction of the Employees' share by the Executive Committee. The matter rests entirely in the discretion of the Executive Committee. Such unlimited and unguided discretion cannot be said to be proper and legal. The provisions contained in Regulation 15(2) and 15(3) of the Central Warehousing Corporation Employees' Provident Fund Regulations, 1962 and suclz similar provisions contained in the Regulations. pertaining to other organisations to which the provisions of the Act of 1952 are not applicable are required to be deleted so as to bring the employees of such organisations at par with the employees of other organisations.

_4.l4. Holding of Lok Adalats.--When a sizeable number of claims have re- mained unsettled, it may be desirable to hold a 'Lok-Adalat' for setting the claims on the spot at the site of the establishment in order to relieve the distress of the claimants. Such a 'Lok-Adalat' should be properly publicised in advance so as to make the claimants aware of the programme. Individual notices may also be served on the claimants by the employer and/or the provident fund organisation. Matters would in such an event come to a head and all concerned would be seized of the problem and placed under spotlight. And there would be concentration on the solution of the problem. The Ombudsman shall have the power to direct the holding of such a 'Lok-Adalat' Whenever considered necessary, desirable or expedient to do so. Failure to comply with his directions should entail penal consequences. The solution of the problem will become easier and quick redressal of grievances of the suffering claimants may become possible if such a course is adopted. The Ombuds- man or his deputy may remain present personnaly at the sitting of the said Lok A dalat.

\ We recommend accordingly.

CHAPTER V PROBLEM REGARDING LEGAL IMPLICATION OF 'NOMINATIONS' UNDER THE EMPLOYEES. PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLA- NEOUS PROVISIONS ACT- 1952--SUGGESTED SOLUTION 5.1. In respect of nominations made under the life insurance policies-tl_1ere was a difference of opinion between different High Courts as to whether the nominee was entitled to the amount payable under the policy as a beneﬁciary in his own right to the exclusion of the heirs of the deceased assured or whether the nominee was merely a person authorised to make collection on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased assured. The issue has been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi 's case [AIR 1984 SC 346], which upholds the latter view, namely, that the nominee is merely empowered to collect the amount for the beneﬁt of the legal heirs. Before the Supreme Court rendered its decision and settled the legal position in the context of the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Life Insurance law should be clariﬁed by virtue of an amendment so that a nominee became entitled to the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured as a beneﬁciary in his or her own right. The Government has neither accepted the re- commendation nor rejected the recommendation. Thus, the law, as at present is as per the delacration made by the Supreme Court is Sarbati Devi's case.

5.2. A similar question has arisen in the context of the Employees. Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provsions Act [Act for short]. The Scheme of the said Act is altogether different. A crucial provision in the said Scheme is contained in section 10(2), which in terms provides that the amount payable under the Act and the Scheme would vest upto the nominee. The question that has arisen is this 2--

When a nomination is made by a member under the Employees' Provident Funds Act and the Scheme in respect of the amount standing to his credit in the Fund (which nomination is intended to be effective on the death of the memberbef ore receiving that amount), does the nomination---

(i) merely confer on the nominee the right to collect the amount, or

(ii) does its eﬂ'ect_ go beyond that, and the nominee can claim that he is the beneﬁcial owner of the amount received by him ?

In the former case, the nomination has the effect merely of discharging the Employees Provident Fund authorities, etc., but it does not confer a beneﬁcial title on the nominee so as to exclude the beneﬁciaries as speciﬁed in the Scheme. In the latter case, the nomination has a more positive effect and makes the nominee the absolute owner of the amount paid to him or her in his or her own right.

5.3. Conﬂicting views of_ High Courts--The Calcutta High Court has held that the amountexclusively vests in the nominee and the legal heirs have no right therein. Distinguishing the provisions contained in section 39, Insurance Act, the High Court held :--

"l3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .the status of a nominee under the Provident Fund Act is completely diﬂerent from his cou nterpart under the Insurance Act. The most striking difference about the status of the nominee under the two Acts is clearly discernible from S. 10(2) of the Provident Fund Act quoted earlier which expressly provides that the amount standing to the credit of a member of the Fund at the time of his death shall vest in the nominee and it shall be free from any debt or liability incurred by the de- ceased or the nominee before the death of the member. From S. 10(2) it is abundantly clear that immediately upon the death of member the provi- dent fund money becomes part of the asset of the nominee whereas under the Insurance Act after the death of the assured the money continues to be his asset; and the money which was standing to the credit of the member becomes free even from the debt or liability incurred by the nominee before the death of the member. Only because the money vested in, and thereby became the property of the nominee after the death of the member 26 ' such a provision was required to be incorporated :i.s. otherwise. being estate ofthe nominee. it was linle to lo Z'tit,Fiit'(l f : debts or liabilities incurred by him prior to the tt=':.th of 11.; l':"('lTxl'\"'l'. That the nominee under the E-"1'ovi(l.r"t*.t t"ttt'.-ti /trt, u:tlil:v tn: ' nznier tit; lnsttrance Ac, t gets a right to the rncnry :-.l~..o has bi. ittatle clear by tile provisions of paras 61 and 70 of the Scheme quoted earlier."

5.4. On the other hand the Andhra Pratleslt and 911:?" Ifigh Courts rt-lying up- on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in SuI'l)(Iil Dot'/".s' cr.r.w9 have held that the nominee of a provident fund has only the right to collrct the amount and that such a right does not confer an absolute right on him to rei.:-xi-ive the amount to the exclusion of the statutory beneﬁciaries.

5.5. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has largely adopted the approach that the position under the Employees' Provident Funds ::nt.l Misc:-llztrteous Provisions Act' 1952 is the same as that in respect ofa nomination 'timlrvr section 39, Insurance Act. For the purpose of the Irsurance Act. the Sttprt'.n.:;- -Court in Sc/rluzti Devi v. Usha Devi9, has held that the nominee dO('S not becorne b;:.cr-licial owner. Corres- pondingly, (according to the Andhra Pradch High Court) the nominee under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, also does not become a beneﬁcial owner. In con- trast, the Calcutta High Court has pointed out that the statutory lvmguage in the case of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is different from that employed in section 39 of the Insurance Act. In pnrticninr, iiecrimc op/'thc words "vest in the nomincc"' used in .5'/.'ction 10(2) oft/rc 12);:/9/.oycr<t' P/'oi'1'u'u/it Funds Act of I 952, it must be hcld that imrncdiritcly upon the (lea!/I oft/rc n.einbcr, the provi- dent fund money becomes part ofthe asscts oft/ze nominee wltcnms. uitder the Insurance Act, after the death of the 2lSS1l1'€.(l, the money coiitinttes to be his asset. This is also made clear (according to the Calcutta l-ligl1Cou.rt) by the provision of paras 61 and 70 of the Scheme. It may be mentioned that the Andhra Prat'i.»:5;i1 High Court does not seem to have noticed section 10(2) of the main Act and as re rds paras 61 and 70 of the Scheme, that High Court does not construe the words "right to receive" and "become payable" (used in the Scheme) as indicating an i:'ttei:tion to confer bene- ﬁcial ownership. There are a few other provisions of the Act 2".ll(l the Scheme, dis- cussed in the two judgements. But for the present ptlt'pO~;.'f., it is not necessary to enter into their details.

5.6. The preferable vit'«w--Thus, by reason of the conflicting decisions regarding the rights of a nominee under the Act of 1952 and the SCl'l'?1'ilt3' framed thereunder, the question arises as to which of the two views needs to be accepted. The view taken by Calcutta High Court appears to be correct on an overall interpretation of the relevant provisions c ntained in section 10(2) of the Act of 1 952 and paras 61 and 70 of the Scheme framed thereunder for the following reasons :---

(i) Section 10(2) of the Act of 1952 speciﬁcally provides that any amount standing to the crcdit of a member in the fund or of an exempted employee in a provident fzind at the time of/zis death (.7.'1(l[7(.')'c?bl£' to his nominee under the Scheme or the rules ofthe provident fund shall, subject to any deduc- tion authorised by the said scheme or rules. vest in the nominee. (Emphasis supplied). There is no such or similar provision in the Insurance Act, 1938.

(ii) Para 61(3) of the Scheme of 1952 places a restriction on the right of a subscriber in making a nomination. It provides that if a subscriber has a family at the time of making the nomination, the nomination shall be in favour of one or more persons belonging to hisfamily am! that any nomina- tion made by such member in favour of a person not belonging to the,/izmil y shall be invalid. Moreover, para 61(4) of the Scheme of 1952 further provides that if at the time of making the nomination, the subscriber has no family, the nomination may be made in favour of any person(s) but such nomination shallforthwith be deemed to be invalid i/"subsequently the subs- criber acquires a family. There is no such restriction in the Insurance Act, 1938. Under the said Act, a nomination can be made in favour of any person. In other words, under the Insurance Act, an assured person, whether or not he has a family at the time of making the nomination, can nominate any person to receive the amount of the Insurance Policy and such nomination remains valid till the same is speciﬁcally cancelled or revoked by the assured or on the nominee predeceasing the assured. The difference between the two provisions is not unintentional. The 27 Legislature appears to have enacted the two provisions differently with a speciﬁc object. The object is that under the Act of 1952 since_the nomination is restricted to a member of the family, such a nominee should be entitled to the amount of the Fund absolutely and to the exclusion of others; whereas under the Insurance Act, a nomination canbe made in favour of any person, such nominee should rec :ive the amount for the benefit of all the legal heirs.

(iii) The proposition that a nominee under the Act of 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder gets an absolute interest in the amount of the Fund to the exclusion of others, is also supported by the provisions of para 61(2) of the Scheme which says thata subscriberkmay in his nomination ' distribute to amount that may stand to his credit in the Fund at his own discretion. The concept envisaged by this provision establishes beyond doubt that the nominee(s) would get the amount absolutely._ This provi- sion cannot be interpreted to mean that the subscriber is to distribute the money between the nominee for further distribution among the legal heirs. As an illustration in a givencase a Sxbscriber nominates his two sons and further provides that both such nominees shall get half share in the amount of the Fund. One of the nominees predeceases the subscriber. A question would arise as to what would be the eifect of one nominee pre--deoeasing the subscriber. Whether the surviving nomineer will get the whole amout or whether the nomination as a whole would become ineffective ? The answer to this situation is found in para 61(5) of the Scheme, which provides that if the nominee predeceases the subscriber, the interest of the nominee shall revert to the subscriber who may make afresh noamintion in respect of such interest. Therefore, in the case taken as an illustration, in the event of one nominee predcceasing the subscriber, only half share of the deceased nominee will revert to the subscriber. Undoubtedly, a subscriber is at liberty to concel, revoke or modify but then the nominee, whoever he may be, ultimately acquires an absolute interest in the amount of the Fund.

(iv) The proposition that a nominee will take the amount of the fund absolutely to the exclusion of other heirs also ﬁnds support from the provision of para 70(i) of the Scheme, which permits nomination in respect of a part of the amount of the Fund. If a nominee was not to get any absolute beneﬁcial interest, the Legislature would not have provided for a nomination in respect of a part of the amount. There is no such corresponding provision in the Insurance Act, 1938.

(v) The provisions contained in paras 61 and 70 ot the Scheme read with sec- tion l0(2) of the Act of 1952 are .to be read as an exception to the personal law regarding succession govering the subscriber. This is evident from the bare provision of para 70. Under these provisions the amount is required to be paid to the nominee(s) if there be a nomination. In the cases where there is no nomination the amount is to be paid to the member of the family of the subscriber in equal shares. Through the childrcn--sons or daughters--majors or minors--rnarried or unmarried---are included within the deﬁnition of the word "family" in Cl. (g) of para 2 of the Scheme, under the proviso to para 70 (ii) of the Scheme, major sons, major sons of a deceased son, married daughters whose husdands are alive and married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive, have been speciﬁcally excluded and they are not entitled to any share in the amount of provident fund in spite ofifhe fact that they are members of the family of the subscriber and theflegal heir under the personal law of suc- cession. Further clause (iii) of 'para' 70 of the Scheme provides that in case there is not person entitled to receive the amount under clause (i) or clause (ii), then the amount is to be paid to the persons legally entitled to it, i.e., legal heirs accordingto the personal law of succession. The provision of clause (iii) also suppbrts the view that para 70 of the scheme is to be read as an exception to the provisions of personal law regarding succession. In other words, the provisions contained in paras 61 and 70 of the Scheme read with Section 1(X2) of the Act, prescribe a mode of succession altogether different from the mode provided under the perso- nal law of succession governing the subscriber.

5.7. The Calcutta view would appear to be correct in view of the language, content and intendment of section 10(2). And para 61(3) of the Scheme of 1952 93sMIJ(N)273M0fLJ&CA 26 provides a clue to this object by providing that if the member has a_ family, then the nomination should be in favour of a person b;-longing to the family, as deﬁned in para 2(g) of the Scheme. Moreover, the cornntzon man or _ women would perhaps justiﬁably assume that the nominee would be beneﬁcially entitled to the said amount. Understandabl y so because the desire of the person covered by the Act in making nomi- nation might well bc to extend a protective umbrella to the person in whose welfare he is most concernea' in the unfortunate event of his or her demise resulting in rendering destitute such a person who was cconomicaly dependent on_t/re employee covered by the Act. From all points of view, therefore, the Calcutta view would apper to be more persuasive.

5.8. Need to end the uncertainty and settle the law urgently-----The resultant posi- tion as it obtains today is that whereas one High Court proclaims that the provident fund amount 'vests' absolutely upto the 'nominee' as a beneﬁciary in his or her right another High Court holds to the contrary to the eﬂect that the nominee is a mere collecting agent on behalf of the ultimate beneﬁciaries under the law. Till the Supreme Court resolves the controversy in case there is an appeal and it is not withdrawn as settled, the uncertainty will continue to persist. As the matters stand today even if an appeal reaches the Supreme Court and is disposed of on merits it may take more than a decade. The consequence would be :---

(I) In some States the nominee will get the provident fund amount as an ab- solute beneﬁciary. In other States the nominee will have only obligation to act as a collecting agent. The same law will thus operate diﬂbrentlyin different parts of India and beneﬁt dilferent persons.

(2) The employee making the nomination himself will not know what he is doing and who will beneﬁt by making the nommatin and his purpose in making nomination is likely to bedefeated depending on the uncertainty as tohow the court will construe the legal consequences of nomination.

(3) Neither the nominee nor the othermembers of his family will know who is the rightful claimnt for years together and will not be able to utilise or epmloy the funds. ' (4) Nominee and other family members of the deceased are likely to be locked in a decades-drawn litigation.

(5) Instead of the funds providing succour to the family it will perhaps make it incur huge litigation costs.

5.9. It would be counter-productive and result in defeating the benign goal of the benevolent legislation to countenance such a situation. How can a situation be tolerated where there is unc«3rtz=,inly as toiwho will beneﬁt by 'nomination' on the part of the maker of the nomination, the members of the family in distress as also the interpreter and admiriisti-ator of law ? A satisfactory solution has therefore to be found and found with a sense of urgency. » 5.10. Suggested soluticn---On an anxious consideration of the issue, it appears that there are three options :-- ' I First option seems to be to take 'a satutory provision in the Act and the Scheme to the effect that the 'nominee' would becomean absolute beneﬁciary in his or her own right. i III Second option that suggests itself is to makéia statutory provision to the eﬂ'ect that the nominee' will be entitled to collect the amount in question for and on behalf of such members of the family [as deﬁned by Para 2(g) of the Scheme] for the purpose of being disbursed amongst such family members as are '(speciﬁed or dealt with in para 70 (ii) of the Scheme. In other w0rds,'payment will be madeto the_'nominee' for the beneﬁt of the very persons who would he ve been even otherwise entitled to be paid _under the aforesaid provisions of the Scharme in case there was no nomination. An without the necessity to produce a succession certiﬁcate.

III '1'/ziru' course which commands itself is to make a statutory provision enabling an employee to clearly state in writing in the very application making nomination either that he wants that "the nominee shall take the amount absolutely in his or her own right' of that the "nominee shall collect it and pay to my family members entitled there-to under para 70 (ii) read with para 2(g) of the Scheme".

'1 he Commission is of the opinion that the third option would appear to be just and fair and would be preferable in as much as the employee would be fully aware and conscious of what he is doing by making the 'nomination' and the consequences thereof. .-

5.11. On giving anxious consideration to all the relevant aspects, it appears possbile to evolve a formula which would satisfy the demands of social justice and fair- ness besides according due weightage to the desire of the employee concerned. The solution which strikes as eminently satisfactory is this. A statutory provsion may be made to the eﬁect that the amount payable under the Act and the Scheme will vest in the nominee who will be called the "beneﬁciary-nominee" unless the concerned employ- yee has named some person as a "collector-nominee"for the speciﬁc purpose of collect- ing the amount on behalf of the members of the family as deﬁned in Para 2(g) for dis- bursement as per para 70(ii) of the Scheme. In other words, it would tantamount to giving an option to the workmen concerned who can name either a beneﬁciary- nominee or a collector-noimnee upon the signiﬁcance of such. nomination being ex- plained to him. He may be required to express his option in clear terms stating that the nominee will be a beneﬁciary-nominee and not avcolllector-nominee or vice versa. The same formula can also be evolved in respect of life insurance policies and the recom- mendation by the Law Commission in its 82nd Report may be reiterated with this modi-

ﬁcation.

5. 12. Nomination under life insurance policies--While it is outside the scope of the subject matter of this report it may not be in appropriate to suggest that a similar formula can be adopted in respect of nominations under life insurance policies in the 'context of the recommendation made by the Commission in its 82nd report presented more than a decade ago on 2nd February, 1980.

5.13. For, even in respect of life insurance policies, the public at large is per- haps unaware of the true legal position. Many of the persons seeking the protection of insurance policies may well be labouring under the misconception that the nominee would become an absolute beneﬁciary in his or her own right. The same would be the case with regard to those who are covered by the Act and the Scheme. It is, therefore, essential in the interest of all concerned that the position of law is settled. As has been recounted earlier, the Commission has already recommended amendment of the Life Insurance Act with a View to mzakin g a nominee a person in whom the bene- ﬁcial interest would vast to the exclusion of other heirs. Since, however, no decision has been taken on the recommendation of the Law Commission, the matter is still not free from vagueness in the sense that the members if the public may not be fully aware of the implications of nominations and the import of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi 's case. That is why the course suggested in para 5.12 read with para.

5.11 hereinabove deserves to be dopted.

We recommend accordingly.

CHAPTER V] CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

6. 1. Conclusions Provident Fund and similar beneﬁts ﬂowing from the Act" and the Scheme and Schemes framed by the exempted establishments and Public sector undertakings .

have been designed to extend a protective umbrella to the concerned employees so that on retirement they themselves or in the event of their in-service demise their dependants do not ﬁnd themselves in a situation of helplessness similar to the _one faced by passengers of a boat thrown overboard on a stormy sea without a life boat. The very life-purpose of these provisions would be practically defeated if the disburse- ments due on retirement or death of the concerned employees are unduly delayed. In this perspective the Commission undertook a survey of the delays in disuburse- ments of these beneﬁts. And delays, unconscionable, have been uncovered in a very large number of cases in the course of the said survey.

The plight of the retired employees whose main source of income has totally dried up on retirement and the distress of the dependants of the deceased employees (the brea d-winner of the family) who are suddenly faced wtih starvation particularly when the protective umbrella of provident fund and other beneﬁts is kept back for a long time (sometimes decades) is of such magnitude that it calls for urgent remedial action. A ' II The urgency for such measures is writ large on the face of the problem since i the limited sample survey made by the. Commission restricted to 62 public sector undertaking has revealed that as many as "8707 families are suﬂering on account of delays in this area alone. (See para 2.2.' and Appendices DI and D11). And thousands of other families may be suffering likewise. » ' .

And that whereas unwarranted delays ranging upfo 21 years have come to light in the course , of scrutiny of 481 complaints received byfgthe Commission from out of which 139:

complaints have been redressed within about 3 months of the Commission taking up the:

issue with the concerned authorities, 'the Commission is ﬁrmly convinced that it imperative to adopt remedial measures without any loss of time. ' 6.2. The Commission hereby recotnmei|ds----

\ I CREATION OF OMBUDSMHN AS OUT LINED IN CHAPTER III By enacting a statute, a high powered oﬂice of Provident Fund Ombudsman' invested with powers---

(a) inter alia to seek information from all employers/establishments having. Provident Fund Schemes regar ing claims for payment of provident fund accumulations etc. pending; wit, them for more than three months and to issue appropriate directions for settlement of the pending claims and to enforce compliance therewith should be created.

(b) Such employers/establishrnnts '_ ll be under a statuto d t t ub ' returns regarding pending plainrshvavithin the prescribed tiigh. u y 0 S mu

(c) He should be armed; with jitrisafction to monitor delays in distursements provident funds dues etc. in estaﬁishments (exemped as well as unexemptegg covered by the Act and the Sc mes as well as public sector undertakings' and other establishments having Provident Fund Schemes not covered by' the Act.

30 31

(d) The essential obligation of the Ombudsman will be to identify cases of delay in all aforesaid areas and spheres on the basis of the scrutiny of returns or otherwise and to ensure prompt disbursements by suo motu issuing appropriate directions and taking follow up action to secure comp-

liance.

Coupled with the obligation to invite complaints regarding delay in disbursements to the rightful claimants by recourse to public media and to redress their grievances by issuing. appro- priate directions and taking follow-up action to secure compliance with his directions.

And also with the obligation to issue appropriate directions to obviate delays in regard to all other cases in general based on his experience or otherwise considered expedient by him.

II The Ombudsman may be required to submit an annual report of the working of his oﬂice, indicating problems faced by him and making such recommendations as may be deemed necessary by him for sbereamlining the administration. His report may be placed before the Parliament within six months.

III The Ombudsman may direct the holding of a Provident Fund 'Lok AdaIat' for settlemerzt of the pending cases perodically or as and when considered appropriate, necessary or expedient by him in respect of any particular estblishment or class of establishments and the concerned oﬁicers shall be obliged to comply with his directions at the peril of penal consequences. The Ombudsman himself or his delegate may remain present for the purpose of supervision at such 'Lok Adalat.' (SEE ELABORATE RECOMM ENDATIONS AS M ENTIGNED IN CHAPTER IV) IV The relevant provisions of the Act_and the E.'P.F. Scheme should be amended as set out in Chapter I Vby inter alia providing in substance to the following effect :--

(1) Disbursement of provident fund and similar beneﬁts should not be with-

held on the ground that----

(a) the concerned employee has not vacated quarters allotted to him (se-

4. l .3);

(b) the concerned employee has notproduced no demand certificates (see 2.5.8 and 4.1.3);

(c) the concerned employee has not produced succession certiﬁcate except in the cases covered by clause (iii) of' paragraph 70 (see 4.6.2.);

(d) someone has objected to the payment to the nominee or the beneﬁciaries as deﬁned by the Schemes to whom i the authorities are bound to make payment unless prohibited by a court of law from doing so (see 4.2.);

(e) a disciplinary proceeding is pending (see 4. 3);

(f) employer has failed to deposit the deductions made from the employee's wages and or his own contribution (see 4. 5.2).

(2) The Department shall not reject any claim without close scrutiny in- formed with sympathy and without' passing a reasoned order after hearing the claimant (sec 4.12). ' (3) Gross negligence or callous indiﬂerence shown by any oﬂicer resulting in unwarranted delay in making payment to a claimant should be treated as serious misconduct liable to entail dismissal or removal of the concerned oﬁicial from service.

(4) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PAY ALL OUTSTANDING PAST CLAIMS WITHHELD ON THE GROUND OF DEFAULT OF EMPLOYER TO DEPOSIT HIS OWN OR EMPLOYEES CONTRI- BUTIONS FROM ITS SPECIAL RESERVE FUND AS INDICATED INPARA 4. 5.2 OFCHAPTER IV.

And also adopt other measures indicated in Chapter IV.

V To make a statutory provision enabling an employee to clearly state in writing in the very application making nomination EITHER that he wants that "the nominee shall take the amount absolutely in his or her own right" OR that the "nominee shall collect it and pay to my family members entitled thereto under para 70 (ii) read with para 2(g) of the E. P.F. Scheme."12 And to amend the relevant provisions as suggested in para 5.11 so as to make the nominee an absolute owner or a collecting agent as per the desire of the nominator. A VI Regulation 14 of Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Provident Fund Regulation, 1962 regarding denial of interest from due date till actual payment should be 'deleted' WHEREAS provision requiring payment of interest till the end of the month preceding the date on which the ﬁnal payment is authorised should be 'inserted.' So also Regulations 15(2) and (3) regarding forfeiture' should be 'deleted' and all similar Schemes that may be existing in statutory corporations and other exempted or un- covered establishments should be similarly modiﬁed. (see 4. 13).

THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS ACCORDINGLY POSTSCRIPT -

Even as this Report is being ﬁnalized, the Commission has been apprised of the appalling fact that about 4(1) errtployeas of West Bengal are being subjected to un- warranted delay on account of the apparently callous indiﬂerence of the oﬂice of RPFC. This has come to light in the context of the complaint of gross delay of as many as 4 years (nearly) which has caused considerable distress and anguish to one Parsuram Singh, a retired employee of National Iron & Steel Co. (1984) Ltd. He has been made to suffer for nearly four years without any justiﬁcation. When information regarding his complaint was sought from the Company, it was brought to the notice of the Commission that there were nearly 500 similar employees who were similarly' suﬂerirg on account of the apathy of the RPFCfand_ that the Company on its part had even written 5 a letter on 18th Jan., 1989 to the RPFC inter alia stating that the employees were ' being subjected to misery and some of them had even died. To quote the relevant ex- tracts z----

(i) about 500 provident fund final claims are lying pending in your accounts group Howrah, since long;

(ii) the concerned _members are reported to the under-going tremendous ﬁnancial hardship and are often agitating before us;

(iii) some of them already been EXPIRED WITHOUT ANY TREATMENT and proper diet;

(iv) indignation of the Provident Fund beneficieries seemed to be such as it appears that outgoing members/their nominees may at any time resort to the unrestful atmosphere ,'

(v) We have ALREADY SPECIFICALLY DEPOSIT ED their provident fund dues to your oﬂice for necessary settlement;

(vi) I feel and fervently pray to your goodself to look into the matter of early disposal of the stated claims to mitigate their untold misery and to arch' further I.R. problem in our organisation. I (Emphasis added).

Yet the RPFC appears to have done nothing for nearly 1-1/2 years till own. When the Commission addressed the RPFC on 21-12-89, payment of Rs. 37,500 due to Parsuram Singh was made by a cheque dated 1-1-90. This payment was made by a cheque dated 1.-1-90. Thls payment was made within 11 days of the Commission':

letter but nearly 4 years too late. And \=. 1161'. the Commission pursued the matter with the RPF C, l1e confessed that 400 such cases were pending and were being processed. Evidently the RPFC has sat tight on the funds belonging to the employees without qualms for nearly 1--l/2 years even after the Company called the attention of the RPFC to the helpless employees plight. And even now the matter is merely being 'processed'. For THIS UNPARADOl'~lABLE CALLOUSNESS, THE RPFC'S OFFICE ALONE APPEARS TO RESPONSIBLE. [The entire correspondence is appended to this report and marl<e:.l Azapcar-zdice.r I(I) to I( Vl)]. THES PATHETIC STATE OF AFFAIRS EMPF/\TIC/'rLLY UNDERLINES THE URGENT NEED FOR IIWPLEI'/IENTING THE RECO:l/IMENDATION REGARDING CREATION OF A STATUTORY OFFICE OF OI':/IBUDSJWAN WITHOUT ANY LOSS OF TIME.' We close this report on a note of anguish being struck in the context of the awareness sparked by tl'!C realisation that thousands of similarly situated helpless employees or their dependents must be sulfering in silence for very many years. Needless to stress with all the emphasis at our command that the matter brooks no de ay.

Sd/-

(M.P. THAKKAR) Chairman (Y.V. ANJANEYOLU) (P.M. BAKSHI) M ember Member Sd /-

(G.V.G. KRISHNAMURTY) Member Secretary NEW DELHI, DATED THE 20TH SEPTEMBER, 1990.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Martiyani v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr., 1983(2)

2. Imambhai v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1982(1) GLR 581.

3. Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1803. '

4. Nathulal v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Indore, 1984 Lab. I.C. 1438.

4A. Kareparambil They yan Lakshmanan v. Air India, 1986 (1) CLR 138.

5. Imambhai Gulamhusein Shaikh v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 1982(1) GLR 581 at p. 583-584, para 3.

6. Smt. Usha Majumdar v. Smt. Smriti Basu, AIR 1988 Cal. 115.

7. Shaik Dawood v. Mahmooda Begum, AIR 1985 AP 321.

8_. Smt. Om Wan' v. Delhi Transport Corpn., New Delhi, 1988 Lab. l.C. 500 (Delhi).

9. Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346.

10. Shaik Dawood V. Mahmooda Begum, AIR 1988 Cal. 115.

11. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

12. Para. 70(ii) and 2(g) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme.

APPENDIX-A No. 6(3)/88-LC (LS) Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Deprtment of Legal Affairs Law Commission Shastri Bhavan, 7th ﬂoor, New Delhi-110 001. ' Dated 24th October, 1988.

To All Public Sector Undertakings and their Unions. / SUBJECT : Judicial Reforms Sir, The Law Commission of India hasgbeeit as signed the task of revising the system of Judicial Administration in the country with the end in view to streamlining the system and elimiua ting the delays. It is in this context that this letter is being sent.

The Law Commission would, therefore, like to undertake a detailed study of the cases of Provident Fund and retirement idues which are pending ﬁnalisation, whether: E after retirement or death, for more than 6 mqnths and the Provident Fund cases which 3 5 have been finalised and payment ' has en tnnde to the concerned person after 6 months during the last 2 years, with a vie , to ctvolvingan eﬂicacious and speedy system.

, It is therefore, essential for the Commission to get the detailed information on the under mentioned points with a view to equipping the law Commission with the relevant material. The in formation soughffor is of a basic nature which,can be supplied by you and you alone as it is avaiilabb in your records.

. I The Law Commission has a time-bound, 1 gogramme. You are, therefore, requested :

to please give priority to this letter and gse ,concrete factual information indicahd ~ on the following points within ﬁfteen days pm the date of receipt of this letter :-- j é_

(a) Number of Provident Fund and 1", irement dues cases pending ﬁnlisation C ' Whether after retirement or death : ' fan employee for more than 6 months.

(b) If possible, please give information regarding number of provident fund and retirement dues casensgihich have been ﬁnalised and payment a has 'been made to the' concdr employee or his successor aﬂner 6V.

months of his retirement or Heath as the case may be, during the last 2 / years. 3

Your Co-operation and urgent responte will highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

R.L. KHURANA) Joint Secretary and Law Oﬁicer.

K r APPENDIX-B No. 6 (3)/88-LC(LS) Part III Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Department of Legal Affairs Law Commission Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, the 28th Nov. 1988.

To All Trade Unions.

Subject : Judicial Reforms Sir, The Law Commission of India has been assigned the task of judicial reforms in the country with the end in view to streamlining the system and eliminating the delays. It is, in this context that this letter is being addressed.

2. The Law Commission would, therefore, like to undertake a detailed study of the cases of provident fund and retirementdues which are pending ﬁnalisation, whether after retirement or death, for more than six months and instances of cases where there has been inordinate delay in such cases, in the past two years with a view to evolving an efficacious and speedy system. The Commission would appreciate very much, if you will be good enough to extend your cooperation by furnishing the necessary information and giving appropriate feedback to enable the Commission to undertake this assignment. The Commission accordingly requests you to furnish the detailed information on the under-mentioned points with a view to equipping the Law Commission with the relevant material

3. The Law Commission has a time-bound programme. You are, therefore, requested to please give priority to this letter and send complete factual information indicated on the following points within 15 days from the receipt of this letter :-

(a) Number of Provident Fund and retirement dues cases pending ﬁnalisation whether after retirement for death of an employee for more than six months.

(b) If possible, please give information regarding number of Provicent Fund and retirement number of Provident Fund and retirement dues cases in which there has been inordinate delay which have come to light during thelast two years.

(c) Average time taken in ﬁnalising the Provident Fund Claim and retirement dues of an employee and payment 'made to him.

a Yours faithfully, Sd/- _ (R.L. KHURANA) ' Joint Secretary and Law Oﬁcer.

APPENDIX-C No. 6 (3) 88-ILC(LS) Part 11 Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Department of Legal Affairs Law Commission Shastri Bhavan, -

New Delhi, the 28th Nov. 1988.

To All Provident Fund Commissioners.

SUBJECT : Judicial Reforms.

Sir, The Law Commission of India has been asigned the taks of judicial reforms in the country with the end in viewto streamlining the system and eliminating the delays. It is, in this context that this letter is being addressed.

2. The Law Commission would, therefore, like to undertake a detailed study of the cases of provident 'fund which are pending ﬁnalisation, whether after retirement or death, for more than six months and the provident fund cases which have been ﬁnalised and payment has been made to the concerned person after six months during the last two years, with a view to involving an eﬂiciacious and speedy system. The Commission would appreciate very much if you will be good enough to extend your cooperation by furnishing the ncessary information and giving appropriate feedback to enable the Commission to undertake this assignment. The Commission accordingly requests you to furnish the detailed information on the under mentioned points with a view to equipping the Law Commission with the relevant material.

3. The Law Commission has a-time-bound programme. Your are, therefore, requested to please give priority to this letter and send complete factual information indicated on the following points within 15 days from the receipt of this letter :-

(a) Number of Provident Fund cases pending ﬁnalisation whether after retire-

ment or death of an employee for more than six months.

(b) If possible, please give information regarding number of Provident Fund cases which have been ﬁnalised' and payment has been made to the con-' cerned employee or his successor after six months of his retirement or death as the case may be, during the hst 2 years.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(R.L. KHURANA) Joint Secretary & Law Oﬂicer.

APPENDIX-DI Information supplied by Public Sector: Undertakings regarding pending Provident Fund/Retirement dues cases in response to request dated 24-] 0-88.

S. File Name of the organisation Nos_ of No. serial No. pending PF, Retirement cases from 100 and above 1 2 ' 3 _ 4 I 56 Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi .~ . . _ 3539 2 75 Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad . . . . , 3144 3 50 National Textile Corporation (Guj.) Limited, Ahmedabad . 497 4 13 Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi . . 250 5 44B Hoogly Dock and Port Engineers Limited, Calcutta . . 130 6 78 Indian Oil Corporation, New Delhi . , 104 7 72 Burn Standard Co. Ltd., 10C _l-[induford Street, Calcutta 99 8 54 Oil and Natural Gas Commiyion CPF Section, Dehradun 96 9 63 Hindustan Newqarint Ltld. Newsprint Nagar P.O. Kottayam Distt., Kerala . . . . . . . . , 79 10 9 Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi . . . 59 11 64 National Jute Manufacturers Corporation Ltd., 4, Netaii C Subhash Marg, Calcutta. . . . . . . . 47 12 69 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, P.O. Neyveli-607801, South Arcot Distt., Tamilnadu . . . . . . 44 13 70 Triveni Structurals Ltd., Naini, Allahabad . 41 14 48 Indian Drugs & Phammoeuticals Limited, New Delhi . . 39 15 28 Jessop & Co. Ltd., Calcutta . . 30 16 62 Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, Nagour . . ' 27 17 14 Pyritcs, Phosphotes & Chemicals Ltd. . V25 18 73 The Fertilizer Corporation of India, Nehru Place, New Delhi 24 19 36 Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizgs Ltd., Bombay . . . 21 20 19 Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Forest 8: Plantation Devolop- 20 ment Corpn. Ltd., Port Bhir ' . . . . ' . ' .

21 29 Tyre Corporation of India Limited, Calcutta . . . 15 22 30 Projects & Development India Limited, New Delhi 15 23 35 Hindustan Copper Limited, Calcutta . . . 11 24 38 The Shipping Corpn. of India Ltd., Bombay 11 25 42 Air-India Employees Provident Fund, Bombay 11 25 45 The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited, Cochin 1; 27 53 Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Limited, Octa- camund . . . . . . . . . 1 1 23 4 National Projects Construction Corpn. Ltd., N. Delhi .' ll 29 20 Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Vishakhnpatnam 10 30 21 Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., Singhbhum, Bihar 9 31 39 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Koraput Division 9 32 40 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Lucknow Division . 8 37 38 APPENDIX-DP----con! d.

1 2 3 4 33 57 Garden Reach Ship builders and Engineers Ltd., Calcutta 34 59 Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., Bombay 35 60 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore 36 61 The Minerals and Metals Trading'Corpn. of India Limited, N. Delhi . . . .. . . . . . 6 37 41 National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., New Delhi 6 38 18 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bombay . 6 39 2 Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India Ltd., Ranchi) 6 40 76 Visakhapatnarn Steel Project, Vishakapathnam . 5 41 52 The State Trading Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi 5 42 3 Praga Tools Limited, Secunderabad . . 4 43 1 Electronics Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad . 4 44 7 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Calcutta . 4 45 58 National Seeds Corporation Ltd., New Delhi 3 46 34 HMT Limited Ernakulam 3 47 10 Madras Fertilizers Limited, Madras . 2 48 15 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Barrackpore (W.B.) 2 49 16 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Kanpur 2 50 32 Bengal Immunity Ltd.,,Calcutta 2 51 45 Mazagon Dock Limited, Bornbay 2 52 55 Hotel Aurangabad Ashok Aurangabad 2 53 65 Hotel Varanasi Ashok The Mall, Varanasi . 2 54 71 Ashok Hotel, 50-B Chankayapuri, New Delhi 2 55 43 National Instruments Limited Calcutta , , 2 56 4 Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., Bombay 1 57 8 The Mica Trading Corporationof India Ltd., Patna, 1 53 11 National Film Development Corporation Ltd., Bombay 1 59 12 Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd., Almora 1 60 17 Hindustan Cables Ltd., Calcutta 1 61 22 Cochin Shipyard Limited, Cochin _ . 1 62 33 Central Cotta--e Industries Corpn. of 'India Ltd., New Delhi . 1 APPENDIX DI I ' 4 1' d ,5' ' Public Sector Undertakirigs regarding Provideng Fund/Retirement lnformamm Supp le Dzgilgzfes in response Io request dated 24-10-88 No. of No. of cases cases pending ﬁnalised 5] Name of the Enterprise ﬁnalisa- after six Remarks N'o tion for months of ' more than retirement/ six death 1 2 3 I 4 5 '_ 1 Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., 3,144 4,111 Non-submission/late submission of Dhanbad claims, disputed claims, etc. 2 Steel Authority of India Limited, 3,689 2,187 Non vacation of company's quarter, New Delhi ab_sfr_ice of nominee and non-sub-

mission of succession certiﬁcate.

3 Heavy Engineering Corporation 260 36] --

(Gujrat) Limited, Ranchi 4 National Textile Corpn. (Gujrat) 497 -- Gratuity cases for the period prior Limited, Ahrngdabad to nationalisation. Writ Peitition pending injunction granted by High Court.

5 Burn Standard 00. Limited, 99 297 Most of the_cases whicharepending 10-C, Hunderford Street, Cal- areso pending due to non-receipt of cutta_ claims of settlement.

6 Oil & Natural Gas Commission, 96 70 --

CPF Section, Dehradun.

7 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 104 59 Reasons for pendency :

New Delhi Re. Item No. 3 :

I (:1) Retirement:

---Cases ﬁled by the em loyees in Court of Law chal enging their date of birth/retirement.

---«Employee's request for retain-

ing PF amount with PF trust.

(b) Death :

--Delay in receipt of post-inoi'-

tem report. 7

-- Non-receipt' of Guardianship certiﬁcate.

-- Non receipt of succession certiﬁcate.

-- Non receipt of correct address.

-Non receipt of alﬁdavitsl forms.

-- Non receipt of death certiﬁ-

cate.

--Continued occupation of Oompany's quarters.

- Belated issues being sub-

Judice.

Re. Item No. 4 :

(a) Retirement : Non-receipt of advanced stamped receipt.

(b) Death :'

--- Non receipt of required docu-

ments from the legal nominee.

APPENDIX-D11» (ontd.

1 2 4 5

---- Occupying company's quarter by the nominee of the decea-

sed.

---- Non - receipt of succession certiﬁcate/afﬁdavits.

8 Mineral Exploration Corpn. 27 129 Non-submission of relevant docu- Limited, Nagpur. ments such as death/succession

--- certiﬁcates.

9 Central Warehousing CUrpora- S9 96 -----

tion, New Delhi 10 Hindustan Newsprint Limited, 79 72 Delay due to defective nomination/ Newsprint Magar P.0. Kottayam non-submission of form No. 13- Distt., Kerala. Non-submission of non-employ-

ment certiﬁcate.

ll Hooghly Dock & Port Engineers 130 --- Delay due to P.F. authorities. Limited, Calcutta.

12 National' Jute_ Manufacturer_s_ 47 69 Non-submission/late submission of Corporation Limited, 4, Netaji claims by concerned employee,' Subhash Marg, Calcutta. legal heirs/nominee.

13 Salkia and Port Engineering --- 82 ---

Works, Calcutta.

14 Triveni Structurals Limited, 41 29 --

Naini, Allahabad.

15 Jessop & Co. Ltd., Calcutta. 30 40 ----~ 16 The Fertilizer Corporation of 24 37 One case pending in the Court. In India, Nehru Place, New Delhi. other cases the non-settlement/ delayed settlement is due to delayed submission of the Succession Certi-

ﬁcates in cases where there is no-

nomination. In some cases the delay is due to non-vacation of the official quarters.

17 Bharat Petroleum Corporation 6 54 Delay is mainly for lack of informa- Lirruted, Bombay. tion from employees who have resigned and_in 'case of death, the non-availability of the nominees at the given address.

18 Tea Trading Corporation of -- 49 Delay in receipt of claims.

India Limited, Calcutta.

19 Tyre Corporation of India Limi- 16 31 Non-availability of claim/succes-

ted, Calcutta. sion certiﬁcate, dispute over nomi- nation or dispute over minor legal heirs.

20 Pyrites, Phosphates & Chemica- 25 19 ---

cals Limited, New Delhi.

21 Neyveli Lignite Corporation 44 Nil Non-receipt of clearance oettiﬁca Limited, P.O. _Neyveli-6_07 801, in respect of the oﬂicial South Arcot Distt., Tamil Nadu. modation provided to the etnplo.

_ yees.

22 Andaman & Nicobar Islands 20 23 ._ Forest and Plantation _Develop--

ment Corporation Limited, Port Blair.

23 Hindustan' Aeronautics Limited, 7 35 Disputed cases and documents Bangaloref awaited from nominees.

24 Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals 39 -- _ Limited, New Delhi. I 25 National Projects & Construc- 11 23 Non-receipt of Succession Certiﬁ-

tion Corporation Limited, New Delhi.

cate;/non-receipt of complete infor-

mation from Units located in the interior areas. .

(V APPENDIX-DH-~contd.

i 2 3 4 5 26 Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertili- 21 8 __ zers Limited, Bombay.

27 Mazason Dock Limited, Bombay 2 26 Non-availability of Estate Duty Certiﬁcate and Indemnity Bond.

28 Projects &-Development India 15 11 N - t' f ' '.

Limited, New Delhi. de(:iliavla§:112i?tl;rS? company S res' 29 National Thermal Power Corpn. 6 19 __ Limited, New Delhi. _ 30 IS<§)v{]PI0)I§li]iiC'>n Of ~-- 49 Late submission of claim papers.

31 The Minerals and Metals T_rad- 6 17 Non-submission of relevant claim ing COFPIP Of India Liml'-ed. papers inspite of reminders by New Deiiih registered post.

32 The Shipping Corporation of 11 11 No 1' fl ' ' India Limited..B0mbay- by nlﬁgciirilphﬁirrlgeiﬁ tilgealafif)::'li'll:i3m(e):' nominations.

33 Hindu_stan Photo Films IyIanu- ll 8 ._ facturing Company Limited, Ootacamund.

34 The State Trading Corporation 5 13 \ _ of India Limited, New Delhi.

35 The Fertilizers & Chemicals ll 7 For want of no ' t' ' Travancore Limited, Cochin. certiﬁcate andmlldisgiintesusbﬁfsécg heirs.

36 Cochin Reﬁneries Limited, _ 13 _ Ambalamugal, Kerala.

37 Balmer Lawrie & Compan)' Lid-. 4 12 For want of Succession Certiﬁcate Ca1Cutta- Nomination in favour a minor:

Pendency of industrial dispute.

38 Hindustan Shipyard Limited, 10 5 Law receipt of dag pen _ Visakhapaifiam dency of court proceendiifgas or c/llifcli. ' plinary proceedings.

39 Garden Reach Ship Builders & 8 7 Non-submission of S ' Engineers Ltd., Calcutta. V Certiﬁcate. uccesslon 40 Rehabilitation Industries Corpo- --- 13 __ ration Limited, Calcutta.

41 Hindustan Copper Limited, 11 1 _ Calcutta.

42 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, 9 ' 3 Mon-availability of nominations Koraput Division. and non-compliance of legal forma.

lities.

43 Electronics Corporation of India 4 8 For want of legal heir of valid Limited, Hyderabad. _ _ nomination or pendency of the 44 Metallurgical & Engineering mane;-in court 44 Metallurgical & Engineering 6 5 Delay is general] ' fd Consultants (India) Limited. while in service ydiliiactaiaseiuﬁuesgiglii Ranchi. certiﬁcate where -proper nomina.

tions are not available.

45 Hindustan A_er_o_nautics Limited, 8 3 Non-clearance of company'; dues Lucknow, Division. nomvacation of company; quart", non-submission of claim papers.

46 Air India Employees Provident ll -- Non-vacation of residential qua;-. Fund, Bombay. tars, 47 National Council of Education --- 9 ..

Research & Training, New Delhi.

48 Uranium Corporation of India 9 -- ..

Limited, Singhbhum, Bihar.

49 H0931 Auransabad Ashok, 2 6 Late submission of claim forms.

Aurangabad.

APPENDIX-DII-contd.

2 3 4 5 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 61 62 63 Visakhapatnam Steel Project, 5 NOR-f€Ct:lpt_Of claim forms/doubt- visakhapatnam ful nomination and non-clearance of dues payable to the company.

Hindustan Petroleum Corpora- 7 (a) In three cases outstanding tion Limited, Bombay, hOllSlng loan not cleared.

(b) In one case corporation's quar-

ter not vacated.

sion certiﬁcate not available.

(at) In two cases Estate Duty clea-

rance is awaited.

Bharat Dynamics Limited, -- -

Hyderabad.

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, 2 For want of Succession Certiﬁcate/ Kanpur. nomination in favour of minor.

Discrepancy in the date of birth.

Non-return of Government party.

Hindustan .Paper Corporation 3 No reasons given for pendency. Limited 75-C, Park Street, Calcutta.

Bengal Clieinieals and Pharma- Nil Delay due to shortcomings on the ceuticals Limited, 6, Ganesh part of the employees. Chander Avenue, Calcutta-

700013.

Praga Tools Limited, Secundra- 4 Late submission of legal heir certi- bad. ﬁcate/dispute riding in court.

Non-receipt o the account from the previous office.

The Mica _Trading Corporation 1 Non-receipt of claim papers. of India Limited, Patna.

Hindustan Prefab Limited, New - --

Delhi.

Bengal Immunity Limited, Cal- 2 Late submission of claim papers. cutta.

HMT Limited, Ernakulam. 3 Claim papers not received. Madras Fertilizers Limited, 2 For want of Succession Certiﬁcate Madras. and dispute between the successors. ~ National _ F_ilm Development 1 Nomination in t'av_ou_r of minor and Corpn. Limited, Bombay. pendency of disciplinary proceed. ings.

National Seeds Corporation Li- 3 (a) In two cases succession certiﬁ- mited, New Delhi. cate called for.

(b) In one case whereabouts of \ nominee are not known.

The Elgin Mills Company Limi'- Nii ted, ll/6, Smt. Parbati Bagla' Road. Post Box No. 11, Kanpur (1') In one case the e l t' on 11-6-87. He vide letter dated ll-7-87 to co].

ltect lg; gratfuity. The employee urn t 1_6_198gP 01' Paymen only on

(ii) In the second case employee died_ on In-3-87. Nominee applied for payment of retire-

ment dues with ditferent names and the payment was made only 20-3-1988 on submission of the affidavit by her.

APPENDIX-DII -contd.

3 4 5

65 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Banackpore (W.B.) 66 Bongaigaan Reﬁnery & Petra?

chemicals Limited, Assam.

67 Hindustan Cables Limited', Cal-

cutta.

68 Cochin Shipyard Limited, Cochin 69 Central Cottage Industries Corpn.

of India Limited, New Delhi.

70 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore.

7] National Instruments Limited, Calcutta.

72 Hotel Varanasi Ashok. The Mall, Varansi.

73 Ashok Hotel, 50-3, Chanal:ya-

puri, New Delhi.

'i'4 Export Credit Guarantee Corpn.

of India Limited, Bombay.

75 Indian Medicines Pharn-iaceuIi~ cal Corporation Limited, Almora.

76 Kuremukh Iron Ore Company Limited, Bangalore.

7? Scooters India Limib.-.d,I.ucknow.

78 Indian Oil Blending Limited, Bombay.

79 Central Coal Limited, Ranchi.

121$ Nil Nil lflot given

(iii) In the third case employee died on ll-+81 without any noni-

nee. The legal heir applied for succession certiﬁcate and on receipt of the succession cartin-

En; payment was nude on For want ol_' Suwession Certiﬁcate and dplay in complince of legal farmalilies.

Vonsreceipt of succession Certiﬁ-

cales.

Late_ receipt oi claim from the nominee.

Delay for want of claim from the nominee and for want of Succes-

sion Certiﬁcate.

Non-submission of succession certi-

ﬁcate.

In one case aha amount at EFF has already_ been paid. The dispute is regarding grant of famiy pension.

It is stated that the family pension schemeﬁas not so far been intro-

duced in the organisation. The other case is pending settlement since March, 1986. No reasons have been assigned for the delay.

For want of Suwession Certiﬁcate.

«.._ Pendency of a civil case in which injunction was issued.

No case pending, cowevet, the Undertaking has quoted three cases of delay in transfer of RF. ac-

counts by the P.F. authorities.

If anypf the cases is aﬁected by the cnndmons mvqntionnd below then the payment 15 not done till the legal requirement has been ﬁnally compiled with .'---

(al Cases where claims have not been submitted by the persona concerned in time.

(12) Cases where there are disputes over the claims and the money is claimed by morc than one claimant.

tion by the deceased employee and there is delay in obtaining glggcession certiﬁcate by the IE.-gﬂ ll' (:1) Cases where the employge, con-

cerned has not paid the dues of the company, if any.

93-MIICNJZ7 3M0fLI&CA AFFENDIX-E PRESS RELEASE The Law Commission is examning the delay in payment of Provident Fund and retirement dues by private enterprises, public undertakings, Trusts operating the Provident Fund etc. and the Provident Fund Commissioners to evolve an efﬁcacious and speedy system. All persons or their legal representatives or their nominees who have not received their Provident Fund and retirement dues etc. for more than one year may kindly furnish full particulars of their cases to Member-Secretary, Law Commission, Department of Legal Affairs, 7th ﬂoor, 'A' Wing, Shastri'BhavaIi, New Delhi-110 001 as earlyas possible, so as to enable the Commission to formulate its views in the matter. ' ' APPENDIX 'F' Tabular statement of pending Provident Fund cases with concerned authorities which have been settled S1. 'Name 'of the complainant Date or specific Date on'which Period (approx) for which the matter remained Response to Whether exempted or No. reference made by compliance reported pending with the conoemedmuthoritaes complaint unexempted Law' Commission to the concerned authorities (General reference was made to the RPFCs on 28-1 1-88) '2 '3 , ' 4 5 , 6 7 V Dehzy involved in settling the PF case above 10 year:

1 Sh.' Inrsingh . . 1-2-7-89 20-7'-89 & 29-8-89 29-8-89-1968=21 yrs 317 unexempted 2 811. 8,). 19-6-89; 16-2-90 13-7-89 5-7-891-1-7-73==v16-7'n 251 Gowempleyee covered by GPF 3 Sh. ¢_n_;.'x. xoihaum 3-7-39 12-7-89 12-7-89-19-3-75-14 yrs 4 months 274 unexempted 4 Sh. A.B. Putlndi 16-2-90; 26-6-89 26-3-.90 29-3.-89-1-1 1-75 =13 yrs-4amonths 214 unexempted/covered under Coal Mines PF Act.

5 S11.' SEN. Mathur 14-6-89 29-9-89 10'-9-89--Apr. 1977=12 yrs 5 months (Partly settled) 173 exempted 6 Sh. A.S. Pathak 8-6-89; 9-2-90 1-7-89 1-7-89--30-$78-=.--11'yrs (partly settled) 15] Municipal Corporation 7 Sh."J5K:'-Kupila 8-6-89 , 25-1-P0 7-7-89 7-7-89-23-9-78=10 yrs 10 months 106 exempted Delay involved in settling the PF case between 6 to 10 years 8 Sh.-l('..R,.tm1Amnrthy 10-7-89 ~ 19-7-89 10 years 361 exempted 9 .' . _ o ' §' Ia 19-6-89; 16-2-90 30-3-90 9 yrs 11 months 245 unexempted I - --a .

10 81:. J51'. Patnaik 19-6-89 30-8-89 30-8-89--1980=9 yrs 8 months 230 unexempted 11 3811. 16. Kamat . . July 1989 25-7-89 257--89--Nov. 79% yrs 8 months (partly settled) 328 unexempted 'T2 "3hZ'P;'O."Kt'.11'irl' . ' . 16-2-90;' 19-6-89 22-2-90 5-4-89-5-2-1980=9_y_rs 2 mtmths 197 exempted S7 Amnmx 'F'--C'on!d.

1 2 4 5 6 7 13 Sh. M. Subba Rao 12-6-89; 25-1-80 23-6-89 23-6-89--April 81 =8 yrs Zmonths (balance settled) 161 unexsrnptaed 14 'Sh. G.C. Patnaik 16-2-90; 19-6-89 1-3-90 % 1-3-90--1982=s7 yrs 9 months 226 80Vt- 8¢fVi¢° 15 Sh. Perugulu Talpulu 12-6-89; 25-1-90 23-6-89 12-8-88-22-5-81_---7 yrs 2 months (balance settled) 162 unexempted 16 Sh. M.K. Acharya 8-6-89; 25-1-90 20-12-89 20-12-89-1-10-82=7 yrs 2 months (partly uttlcd) unexem Pt 17 'Sh. Kundan Lal 12-7-89 30-8-89 1-5-89--31-3-82==7 yrs 2 months (reg gratuity duos) 333 uatuitv ease (sovt Imployu) 18 Sh. A.V. Joshi 26-5-89 22-6-89 7 yrs delay in issuing PF statements, accounts from 1983-84 onward under process.

77 unsxempted 19' Sh. A.K. Ghosh 4-7-89 26-7-89 ll-4-89--30-6-82:6 yrs 10 months 78 govt. service 20 Sh. P.K. Bal . 12-6-89 27-6-89 5-2-89-25-5-82-6 yrs 9 months 76 uempﬂd 21 Smt. S. Bhattacharya 26-2-89 30-3-90 20-3-90--1 5-6-83:-6 yrs 9 months 341 unoxomnted 22 Sh. H.K. Pareok 19-6-89; 16-2-97 7-7-89 (partlly settled) Feb. 1989---July 1982-=6 years 6 241 unexempted mont s V 23 Shy. Francis _ 26-2-90; 12-7-89 16-3-90 ~ 15-11-89--'1983==6 yrs 6 months 313 unexempted 24 811., Y. ...Ska.ria 16-2-90; 19-6-89 27-2-90 26-1-89--Jhnn. 83-6 yrs 6 months ' 218 exempted I 25 Sh. P.V. Natayanan 20-2-90; 3-7-89 8-3-90 22-1-90-10-8-83:6 yrs 4 months 282 unexemPt°d 26 Sh. K.D. Zade 20-12-'89; 12-7-89 9-2-90 2-2-90-30-11-83-=6 yrs 2 months 387 govt. service 27 Sh. I'D.Agga.rwa1 . 19-6-89 21-8-89 21-8-89-July 83:-6 yrs 223 IOVL 501'Vi°0 28 Sh. S. Passyat 28-12-89 22-1-90 21-9-89--l-9-83-6 yrs 430 8914- S01'Vi¢' 29 Sh. V. Shanmukha Rao . . M 10-1-90; 29-5-89 16-1-90 16-1-90-1984-6 yrs (balance settled) 6A 80% "Ni" 30 Smt. Shar1tiGhosh 26-5-89; 12-1-90 16-6-89 & 5-7-89 S-7-89---1983g6 yrs 68 govt. aided 31 Sh. B.N. Sengupta 3-7-89 2 21-8-89 6 yrs. 275 govt. service 32 Sh. V.D. Sharma . 3-7-89; 9-2-90 21-7-89 21-7-89--17-8-83-=6 yrs (partly settled) 267 oxcmptod/uncovered Delay involved between 4 to 6 years 33 Mrs. K.V. Kumari 26-2-80; 12-7-89 16-3-90 8-8-89------22-11-83=5 yrs 9 months 314 unexempted 34 Sh. PJ. Thomas . . 16-2-90; 19-6-89 13-3-90 & 27-2-90 26-7-89-----19-1-83=5 yrs 6 months 207(1) exempted 35 Sh. S.G. Pagare . . 14-6-89 25-7-89 13-4-89-Dec. 1984=5 yrs 4 months 180 unexempted 36 Smt. Sayana Balanna . 9-6-89 22-2-89 & 23-8-89 23-8-89--«Dec. 1984=5 yrs 4 months 148 unexempted 37 Sh. A.M. 13hattaeharya'T_' . 13-3-89 28-8-89 V 3:-;s9--17-1-84:5 yrs. 2 months (pension/gratuity 375 govt. employee C se Sh. Jimmi P. Ward Angémi . 19-6-89 11-7-89 1-4-89--1984=5 yrs 240 unexempted 39 Sh. H.M. Girnare .' . 8-6-89; 19-1-90 27-6-90; 26-4-90 1-2-90-28-2-85=5 yrs 109 govt. service . . 1-2-90 (complainants

11.) 4o Sh. s.c.sar1£ar . J. . . 19-6-89; 16-2-90 _ 1112-90 2.0.-.12-89-4-12-8.4.---.-5 yrs 191 I uuexempred 4/1 Smt. Muehar .' I . 20-2-90; 3-7-89 27-3-90 1-8-89--17-9-84=4 yrs 11 months 259 unexempted 42 .smz. .. '.' _ . ,. . . .. 12-J.-21;}.-2-89.. 12,-_;1-.90 ._1Z:.3E20T.1.0r5'.35,=f11£$.19Jﬂ€!'!!hS 59 unexempted 43 sh. .. . 10-1-89 1-7-89 26-10-88----31-1-84=4yrs9months 330 exempted 1 441 <.§h'."i'>'."i"<".i5"'Tif£'1r " ; 1'E2"3§1j';'"81'9"-éf1:"9""'""iiiiﬁb "V710-9'-*8.'I~'J"an. s3=4'"yr§'s}£aiims' 207(2) exempted ' 45 Sh. s'. Apes iiso . ' . . . 19-689 ' 12-9'-89; 23-8-89 1-8-89-----Ma.r'ch 85=4 yrs 5 months 232 exempted/uncovered 46 sh. Girish Kumar Luxmain Jadav . . A .- .- 3-7-89 3-11-89 3.-11-89---Aug. 985 =4 yrs 3 months 260 unexempted 47 Sh. B. Chalgraborthy . 12-6-89 & 12-1-90 24-1-90 24-1-90-8-10-85=4 yrs 3 months 93 unexempted Delay involved in settling the PF ease between 3 to 4 . 1 . - years 48 Sh. s.D. Kole . - . . . 8-6-89 & 19-6-89 21-8-89 1-8-89-----10-10-85=3 yrs 10 months 12.8 exempted 49 Mrs. Lily Joseph . . . . 12-6-89; 25-1-90 26-6-89 8-5-89----June, 8s=3 yrs 10 months 159 uncxempted so sh. R.B. Sharmn . ' . 1" 12-1-90; 29-5-89 12-2-90 \ 2-ll-89-15-2-86=3 yrs 8 months 64 exempted 51 smt. Saraswati Devi ' 16-2-90; 19-6-89 28-2-90 2.8-2-90-30-6-86-=3 yrs 8 months (partly settled) 229 govt. service 52 sh. 11.9. Ksrsh .- 19-6-89; 16-2'-90 27-7-89 31-1-89-1-7-s5.=.3 yrs 6 months 249 exempted 53 sh. 11.1'. sapm . _ 8-6-89; I9-'6-89 21-8-89 4 24-7-89--30-4-86-3 yrs 3 months ' 128 exempted . .93 es,_'i: " 1 L17 APPENDIX 'F'--Conrd.

1 2 3 , 4 S 7 54 Sh. Mulcul Jain . . . 26-5-89 5-6-89 5-6-89-13-2-86=3 yrs 3 months 14 Unexempted 55 Smt. K.B. Joshi . . 17-1-90; 19-5-89 _ 11-2-90 3) months (reg. oayment of gratuity, partly 73 Board's employee (gratuity case) 56 Sh. S.L. Sharma . . . 20-2-90; 13-7-89 14-3-90 Jan. 90-30-11-86=3 yrs 2 months 269 Dues from govt.

57 Sh. M.C. Bhurat . . . 3-7-89 26-7-89; 17-7-89 28-8-89--18-6-86=3 yrs 2 months 297 unexemptcd 58 Case of 8 members pursued by 23-2-90; 12-7-89 7-8-89; 15-S-90 15-5-90-26-3-87=3'yrs 2 month--maximum delay 307 Do.

M/s. Pioneer Ltd.

59 Smt. s.13. Tagwzle .. . 16-2-90; 19-6-89 29-2-90 14-2-90-1-2-86:3 yrs \ 204 municipality/uncove1-ea 60 S11. Parasuram-Singh . . 21-12-89; 12-7-39 13-2-89 1-1-90-29-12-86==3 yrs 392 unexempted 61 Sh. Jagan Natl: Kapoor 19-6-89; 9-2-90 1-8-89 28-2-89----31-I-86=3_ yrs (partly settled) 213 exempted Delay involved in settling lhe PF case between 2 to 3 _ years V . 1 62 811. 11.0. Rout . . . 28-_lW2_-89 15-1.90 1o-7-x9--1:9:3'6;i'§}s 10 months 1 ' 417 uncxempted 63 T 311:5. "I" '. '. 28-12-8'9 15-1-90 13-7-89---1-9-86:2 yrs 10 months 417 unexemptecl 64 Sh. Mahodi . . . 8-6-89; /19-6-89 21-8-89 2 yrs. 9 months 128 exempted 65 Sh. P.K. Gupta . . 16-2-90; 19-6-89 2-4-90 31-8-89-23-12-86=2 yrs 8 months \ 198 9 unexempted 66 Sh. M.K. Kat . . . 12-1-90; 29-5-89 19-2-90 10-5-89----Lct. '86=2'yrs 7 months (partly settled) 62 exempted 67 Sh. Nand Lal Daga . 26-5-89; 12-1-90 29-6-89 15-3-89----Aug. l986=2 yrs 7 months ' 91 exempted but went into liquida-

ion 68 Smt. Kusum Kumari Devi . 12-1-90; 8-2-89 4-6-90 3-5-90----27-9-86---=2 yrs 6 months gratuity only settled 48 uncovered

- . PF partly settled. 1 69 Sh. P.C. Saha . . .14-6-89; 25-1-90 17-2-90 29-8-89-1-2-87 =2 yrs 6 months 183 govt. service 70 Mrs. B- 331131111 12-7-89 unexemptod (default concerns 8-6-89 2-6-89---28-12-86:2 Yrs 5 months 102 employer as wrong number was gwen) ., 817 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 '80 181 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Dr. V.B. Khanolkar Sh. A.R. Patel .

Sh. J.J. Nimawat .

Sh. Devdas Rao .

Sh. Ram Das .

Sh. Anil Kanti Chakraborty .

Sh. B.K. Bhattacharya Sh. Abas Mian .

Sh. Anil Agg_arwal Smt. Smt. Kitan Srivastava .

Sh. Ramana Gopalan, K.N. Sh. A.M. Beta: .

Smt. Sarojini Agg'arwalA .

Sh. K. Sarabhachari Sh. K.N. Dupare .

Sh. Suraj Kumar .

0 Sh. T.S. Natarajan Sh. Dwarka Singh ___.----*"f 28-12-89; 19-6-89 17-1-89; 9-3-89 20-2-90; 3-7-89 12-7-89; 14-6-89 25-1-90; 14-6-89 12-7-89 7-2-90; 19-6-89 10-7-89; 28-2-90 16-1-89; 9-3-89;

11-1-90 14-65-89 ' 10-7-89; 28-2-89 28-2-89 19-6-89 3-7-89 26-5-89 8-6-89; 25-1-90 8-6-89 3-7-89 12-6-89; 25-1-90 7-2-90; 3-7-89 12-2-90 17-2-89 ; 4-4-89 23-4-90 20-7-89 8-2-90 (lt. of complainant) payment made on 9 7-3-90 (complainant's lt.) 6-7-89 1-8-89; 15-8-89 8-2-89; 2-5-89;

3-2-89 1-7'-8'9 27-7-89 14-8-89 27-7-89 9-8-89; 24-7-89 22-6-89 31-8-89; 11-9-89 21-7-89 12-2-90 lt. dt. 22-2-90 of complainant Nov. 89-5-6-87=2 yrs 5 months 2 yrs 4 monhts 1 16-1-90-1-11-87=2 yrs 2 months 22-4-89-6-3-87=2 yrs 1 month 20-4-89----31-3-87----2 yrs 1 month 20-9-89----16-8-8'7 =2 yrs 1 month 13-1-90--11-1-88=2 yrs 2 yrs (partly settled) 2Y1'S Déléy involved irt settling the PF cases in less than 2 red"; ' '£87-89-31-7-87=1 yr 11 months 17-9-87-2-12-85=1 yr. 10 months reg. PF dues 1 yr 10 months 1 yr 9 months 1 yr. 9 months 24-S-89-31-8-87:1 yr. 9 months 11-9-89-7-12-87:1 yr. 9 months 21-7-89-11-11-87=1 yr 8 months 29-7-89-11-12-87 =1 yr 8 months (partly settled) 28-11-89-8-4-38=l yr. 8 months (partly settled) 242 32 285 337 176 370 235 352 167 303 252 261 \','5 110 150 268 164 299 unexempted unexempted govt. service uncovered establishment govt. service exempted unexempted Municipality employee not cove-

red by the Act unexempted unexemptecl unexempted govt. service govt. service govt. service unexempted bank employee-uncovered exempted/uncovered Board's employee/exempted unexempted C17 Apnmnrx 'F'--(.'au!d.

ZS.-5489-.--12-ﬁéﬁﬁﬁlir 1 month 1 2 3 4 S 7 90 Sh. J.R. Gupta . 26-5-89 9-6-89 9-6-89-19-ll-87=l yr. 8 months 52 unexerﬂpwd '91 Sh. Surindera Arora 19-6-89 14-8-89 1 yr 6 months 228 unexcmvted '92 Smt. I.P. Desai . . 26-5-89 1'6-6-89 17-5-89-15-11-87-=1 yr 6 months 56 unexempted "93 Sh. K. Naguri .' . 10-5-89 12-6-89 4-1-89----'Aug. 1987:-.1 yr 6 months 27 exernpl6dl\!!!00V°1'09 '94 Smt. T. Rukmnni Devi . 28-12-89 12-2-89 22-12-89-15-6-88=l yr 6 months 416 govt. service '95 Sh. Rameshwar Deb . 22-12-89 10-2-90 7-3-89-27-7-87=l yr 6 months 399 80Vt. service '96 Sh. Deviah . _. . 26-2-990; 12-7-89 2-4-90; 17-3-90 22-12-89-July '88=l yr 5 months (partly settled) 302 unexempted '97 313- T-Mdfawnr . .. ., a-15-39 30-6-89 31-1-89-1-8-87=l yr 5 months no unmmptod '98 (%yse[?l'_1l members pursued 1-2-90, 14-6-89 7-3-90 , Maximum delay =1 yr 5 months 165 uncxempted mon '99 S11. V..I.F..I~Ioronha . . . .96-an 23$:-so 16-'2-89-5-10-87-1 yr--4 months 134 exempted 100 Sh. Y.H. Parekh . . . 2-4-90 , 10-4-90 13-1-90-20-'I-88=l yr 4 months 443 exempted A01 8lt.»R:I&t . .' 1988* " 29589 2916-895-'-'J!-'5'-8818-kl 'yr 1 E3 unexempted 102 811. n. new . . 12-6-39 " 4-1-39 18-2-89-Oct. 37:1 yr 4 months 154 govt. service 103 S11. Subir Ganguly . 19-6-89 30-6-89 1-5-89.---Dec. 87=l yr 4 months 205 unexempted 104 Sh. Pundit Patn . . 3-7-89 8-8-89 8-8-89--30-5-88=l yr 3 months (partly settled) 295 unexempted 105 S11. N.B. De 17-1-89 & 20-2-89 8-3-89 7-2-89--30-ll-87=l yr 3 months (partly granted) 79 govt. service 106 Sh. M.K. Jain 29-5-89; 12-1-90 lt. dt. 20-1-90 of 20-1-90----8/88=l yr 3 months 49 unexempted complainant 107 Sh. B.K. Aggarwnl . 8-6-89 30-(>89 27-4-89-31-1-88=l yr 3 months 105 unexempted 108 Mrs. Bhabani Roy wife of 8-6-89; 25-1-90 14-8-89; 3-8-89 16-12-88-12-9-87.-=1 yr 3 months -126 govt. service late Sh. G.D. Roy 109 Mrs. Asha Dinesh Bhandare 19-6-89 ' 28-7-89 21-7-89-March 88=l yr 3 months 254 unexempted 110 Sh. Sumit Aggarwal .' .' 10-7-89 14-8-89 26-7-89---April 88=l yr 3 months 332 unexempted 111 Sh..Anantha Krishnnn D. . 3-7-89 20-A7-89 20-7-89-9-4-88=l yr 3 months (partly settled) 287 unexempted I12 Sh. Shyam Lal . . . 29-5-89; ll-1-90 letter received on 25-1-89--30-11-87=l yr 2 months 35 govt. service ' ' ' 16-2-N of comphi- ' nant) . --

113 Sh. 11.15. cm: . .' . 21-1'-39 15-1.90' 25'-9-89-67-88=l yr. 2 months 395 unexempted .114 S11. . . . V_ 6 21-ff-Q9 _' 312 unexempted 09 115 Sh. Nachentu Ram . 8-6-89 22-6-89 one year (partly settled) 118 unexempted I16 Sh. J. Nayak . . 12-1-90; 24-5-89 24-1-90 23-2-89----29-2-88=1 yr 74 govt. service 117 Sh. Gajanan . . 8 12-1-90', 29-5-89 19-1-90 2-3-89--31-3-88=1 yr 54L& 70 govt. service 118 Sh. S.S. Pillai . . 20-12-89 2-1-90 2-1-90--20-12-88=1 yr 386 exempted/pension case 119 Sh. M.P. Ramachandran 22-12-89 23-1-90; 8-1-90 18-9-89-25-8-88=1 yr 400 govt. service 120 Sh. R.N. Tondon .- . 26-5-89 20-6-89; 25-8-89 2-8-89--5-9-881 =1 months 65 unexempted 121 Smt. S. Rauji Desai . 10-1-90 20-7-90 20-4-89----2-5-88=11 months 43 unexempted 122 S11. A.H.I. Shaikh 14-6-89 20-7-89 11-4-89----1-5-88:11 months 190 govt. service 123 Sh. P.K. Mukherjee 10-7-89 11-8-89 3-5-89----15--7-88=9 months 333 unexempted 124 Mrs. Chandra Mukherjee 9-6-89; 25-1-90 20-6-89 PF 21-12-88-13-7-88=5_ months EDIL &}LAB 146 unexemptcd 13-2-89-13-7-88=7 months 18-4-89-1 3-7-89 =9 mooths; FPF--May 1989+ 15-7-88-10 months ' 125 Sh. P.K. Jain . . 26-5-89 30-6-89 29-11'-88--1-3-88 =9 months 21 unexempted 126 Sh. B.C. Bhattacharya . 26-5-89; 11-1-90 22-6-89 20-3-89----1-6-88=9 months 10 i_ '_'_f 7' -gyunexempted 127 Sh. P.P. Narayanan . 10-7-89 17-7-89 28-2-89-24-4-88=9 months 308 , . exempted » >128 Sh. Stmil B. Vyas . . 14-6-89 31-8-89 18-7-89----2-11-88=8 months 186 unexempted __,_1,__29 Smt..P, Kishan Kakade 26-2-90; 12-7-89 25-1-90 & 20-4-90 Nov. 1989-20-3-89.-:8 months 323 unexempted 130 Sh. Kishan F. Pawan . 17-7-89 3-10-89 26-7-89--26-12-88 =7 months 372 unexempted 131 Sh. Arun B. Chajed . 3-7-89 3-8-89 6-9-88----24-3-88=6 months 281 unexempted 132 Sh. Bhawani . 9-6-89 21-6:89 4-4-89--19-9-88=6 months 153 unexempted 133 Sh. Barendra Kumar Nyogi 12-6-89 19-6-89 4-5-89-30-12-88=5 months 92 exempted 134 Sh. v.v. Ramana . . 3-7-89 30-8-89 6-7-89-14-2-89=5 months 277" giwt. service" 135 Sh. R. Sivararnan . . 19-6-89 23-6-89 23-6-89-23-2-89=4 months 255 ' unexempted 136 Sh. Kiran Das Gupta 26-5-89 12-6-89 17-l-89--21-10--88=3 months 26 tinexernpted 137 Sh. S.D. Donde . . 20-2-89 26-5-89 15-10-88--~30-6-88=3 months (partly granted) 88 govt. service 138 Sh. Babu Lal Gupta . 17-7-89 28-9-89 8-9-89----3-8-89=1 months 366 unexempted 139 Sh. P.K. Guha . J'. 3-7-89 23-10-89 17-10-89-8-9-89--1 month 272 unexempted IS 52 APPENDIX '6' STATEMENT OF DELAY INVOLVED IN DISPUTED CASES Delay £5. cogﬁiaggts 1 35 to 40 Years 1 2 30 to 33 Years 1 3 25 to 30 Years 3 4 20 to 25 Years 2 5 15 fc; 20 Years 8 6 10 to 15 Years 19 7 5 to 10 Yuri 95 8 2 to 5 Years 142 9 0 to 2 Years . . 43 APPENDIX 'H-I' Form required to be ﬁlled up by the Employer] Ti-urtee: of /Exempted/ Uncovered establishment specifying the details of Provident Fund cases involving delay in Sell/z'ment beyond three months and to be submitted to the ombudsman Return submitted by the aforesaid category of employer/trustees for the month of . . . . . . . . . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name and Address of the Factory/Establishment .................... . ._ .................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Sl. Account Name of the Father's name Date of Reasons for Specify the Whether pay- if there is default Date of Period for Reasons in No. No. employee in (or husband's leaving leaving_ service category of ment of dues in making pay- receipt of which the details for block letters name in case of service e.g. retire; claimant was made on men! on the very application case has been delay in married women) merit, resig- whether the date of the day _of leaving for withdrawal pending settlement nation, death employee/ leaving service service, state of provident commencing etc. nominee/ where it was extent of delay fund from the date beneﬁciary so required to from the date of mentioned be made leaving service in column. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Signature of the employer stamp of the factory/establishment ES APPENDIX 'H-I1'

-Form required to be ﬁlled up by the employer of Unexempted establishments specifying the details of Employees Provident Fund and otherMisceIlaneous provisions . case . pending] with the employer establishment for compliance with the Schemes involving delay beyond three months and to be submitted to the Ombudsman Return submitted by the aforesaid category of employer for the monthof Name and address of the factory/establishment Code No. S]. A/c Name of the Father's Date of Reasons for Specify the Extent of delay in Commencing from Date of Extent of delay Detailed Particulars of No. No. member (in name (or leaving leaving category of forwarding appli- the date of leaving receipt of in forwarding reasons for the concerned block letters) husband's service service e.g. claimant--~ cation of claimant service, extent of application application of delay in Commissioner name in retirement, whether under the schemes delay in giving the for with-- member/ respect of case of resignation, member/ (pending on the duly attested drawal of nominee/beneﬁ- steps in married . termination, employeel date of return of application (pend- provident ciary (pending cols. 8, 9, women) death, etc. nomineel to Commissioner ing delivery on fund and on the date of 11 whichever beneﬁciary commencing from the date of return) other mis- return) to Com- is applicable the date of leaving for withdrawal to cellaneous missioner com- service, where it the member, for provisions mencing from was so required to submission to beneﬁts the date men- be forwarded at Cm-mnissioner tioned in that time where it was so column 10 . ' to be ~ given to. member I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 Signature of the Employer Date: . . . . . .

Name and address of the Factory/Establishment ' Stamp of the Factory/Establishment 179 APPENDIX 'H-III' Form required to be ﬁlled up by the RPFC specifying the details of Employee's Provident Fund and other miscellaneous provisions cases involving delay in settlement beyond three months and to be submitted to the Ombudsman Return submitted by RPFC for the month of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Particulars of the Oﬂice of the RPFC Reasons in detail Period for which for delay in Specify the category Date of receipt of the case has been S1. Name at address Name of the Father's name or Account No. Date of _ of claxmant----whethcr application for No. of the factory] employee/member husbands name in of the member leaving establishment to (in block letters) case of married service employee/member, withdrawal of nding/commenc- settlement which case belongs women nominee or provident fund and mg from the date beneﬁciary for other Misc]. on which the provisions application was beneﬁts received 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ' Signature of the Commissioner DICO: .0-onoaooooo Stamp of the Commissioner.

.95 APPENDIX--l(I) To The Secretary, P.F. Law Commissioner, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi--l10 001.

SUB :--Refund of P.F. accumulation of Prasuram Singh, P.F. No. WB/63/471.

Dear Sir, With reference to the subject cited above it is brought to your kind notice that I was an employee of National Iron Steel Co. (NISCO) Belur (Howrah) and I have been retired from service three years back. I submitted my refund application through F/19 dated 29-12-86 and also submitted reminders time to'time.

It is indeed trouble some for me and I have been suffering ﬁnancially for non- payment of my aforesaid dues.

But with great sorrow it is expressed that no action has yet been taken from your end. ' So, I shall be highly obliged if you kindly look into the matter personally.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(PRASURAM SINGH) Dated : C/o. Baliram Singh, Rd. No. 8-E-7/5, New Town, Burnpur, Dist. Burdwan (W.B.) APPENDIX I-(II) No. 6(3)/88-LC(LS) Part IV-392 Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Department of Legal Alfairs (LAW COMMISSION) 7th Floor, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi'-l.

Dated : 21-12-89.

SUBJECT : Norrpayment of Provident Fund/GPF/retirement dues in respect of Shri Prasuram Singlz.

Sir, The Commission has invited through media and newspapers all persons or their legal representatives/nominees, who have not received their provident fund and retirement/death beneﬁt, etc. for more than one year, to furnish full particulars of their case to the Commission so as to enable the Commission to make an indepth study of the problem and to formulate its views in the matter.

In pursuance of this advertisement, one Sh. Prasuram Singh, C/o. Baliram Singh, Rd. No. 8-E-7/5 New Town, Burnpur, Dist. Burdwan (W.B.) has addressed to the .

Commission his application dated nil in this regard. _We enclose herewith a photo- copy of the aforesaid application dated ml of the said employee for your reference which is self-explanatory.

Since the Law Commission is required to carry out the Post--audjt of socio. economic laws and to take all such measures as may be necessary to harness law and the legal process in the service of 'the poor, you are requested to give priority to this letter and--

(1') Send concrete factual information pertaining to the complaint of the said person;

(ii) Your views regarding the said complaint; and

(iii) the cause of the delay;

within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter. Your cooperation and urgent response will be highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(R. L. KHURANA) 5?

APPENDIX I (III) OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER WEST BENGAL, THE ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS 44 PARK STREET 13, LINDSAY STREET CALCUTTA---700 016 Ref No. A/S&C/Misc/Compt/HLO/II Date 13-2-90 'To .

Shri R. L. Khuramna Jt. Secretary & Law Ofﬁcer Govt of India Ministry of Law & Justice Deptt of Legal Aﬂ'airs (Law Com.) 7th Floor 'A' Wing Shastri Bhavan New Delhi-110 001 SUB : Final settlement of P.F. dues in respect of Shri Parasuram Singh, WB/ 163/471. ' Sir, Kindly refer to your letter No. 6(3)/88-LC-Bart IV-39 2A dated 20-12-89 for non-payment of P.F. dues of the above individual.

This is to inform you th_at a sum of Rs. 37,600 has since been passed for payment and 9t(1)1e same has been remitted to the member by cheque under No. 615996 dated 1-1- . ' Yourifaithfully, . Sd/-

(A. K. SEN) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner West Bengal APPENDIX I (IV) NATIONAL IRON AND STEEL COMPANY (1984) LIMITED (A GOVT OF WEST BENGAL ENTERPRISE) PF/PM/21 5 Dated 20-5-90 To The Jt. Secretary & Law Oﬂ'icer, 7th Floor "A", Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001 SUB : Non-payment of Provident Fund/G.P.U.F./Retirement dues in respect of Shrz"/Parsuram Singh.

Dear Sir, Please refer to your Memo No. 6(3)/8'8-LC-Part-IV-392 dated 21-12-89.

In this connection we are to inform you that Shri Parsuram Singh an employee of our Company has retired from his service on 20-10-86 and Management has forwarded his claim Form No. 19 for his Provident Fund dues tofthe Oﬂice of the_ Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, Howrah Local Oiﬁce 24, Belilias Road, Howrah on 29-124986 and-we have also made a sgﬁciﬁc deposit ' vide challan dated 21-08-1986 for the purpose. -We have drawn your attention in ' the above cases vide our letter on previous/occasion, the photo copy of which is enclosed herewith for ready reference. ' In this context we are to aﬁirrn that about 400 cases like'the one as mentioned are pending before the oﬂice of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal for disposal.

We would request you to kindly pursue the said Oﬂice for the release of payment of thesabove said cases along with Sri Parsuram Singh.

Your prompt action is highly solicited.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for National Iron '& Steel co;'(19s4) Ltd. ' V sd-/ A (P.K. BAKSI-II)~ ' Personnel Manage?

PM/PF/31o 18th Jany, 90 To Mr. A. K. Mukherjee, I.A.S., Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, 44, Park Street, CALCUTTA-16 Respected Sir, SUB : Non-payment 'of Provident Fund Dues to out-going employees in respect of M/s. National Iron & Steel Co. (1986) Ltd. under Code No. WB/163.

I would like to_ draw your 1_<ind attention into the subject that about 500 P.F Final Claims are lying pending in your Accounts Group, Howrah since long. The concerned members are reported to be under-going tremendous Financial Hardhship I and are often agitating before us. Some of them already been expired without any treatment and proper_ diet and this indignation of the Provident Fund beniﬁciarjes seemed to be such as it appears that out going members/their nominees may at any time resort to the unrestful atmosphere, though=we have already speciﬁcally deposited their Provident Fund Dues to your Oﬂice for necessary settlement, In the context above, I feel and fervently pray to your goodself t I k ' matter of early disposal of the stated claims to mitigate their untold r(r)1ise(r'y) ancllng avoid further I.R. Problem in our organisation.

Your handful co-operation into the matter is solicited, Thanking you;

Yours faithfully, for National Iron & Steel Co. (1934) Ltd.

Sd/-

(T. s. ms) .

Personnel Manger e.e.

The Regional P.F. Commissioner, V." may Howrah Local Office, (6th ﬂoor) 24, Bellilies Road, Howrah.

The Secretary-

No. To Sir, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER WEST BENGAL 44, Part Street/13, Lindsay Street, CALCUTTA-16 A/Spl/Misc/Compt./H.L.0./1072 SUBJECT : Non Payment of P.F. Dues, Dated the 14-2-89 Shri T.S. Das Personnel Manager National Iron & Steel, Co.

(1984) Ltd. P.O. Belurmath, Dist. Howrah, Pin-711202 (E. RW) I am to acknowledge receipt of your letter No. PM/PF/310 dated 19-1-89 on the above subject which is receiving attention.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

DDo APPENDIX I (V) No. 6(3)/88-LC(I,'.S) Part-IV. 392 Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Department of .Legal Affairs (LAW COMMISSION) 7th Floor, 'A' Wing _ Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-1 Dated : 9-8-90 SUBJECT : Non-payment of Provident Fund/GPF/retirement dues in respect of Shri Parsuram and 400 other .-cases.

Sir, The Commission has invited through mediasand newspapers all persons of their legal representatives/nominees, who have not received their provident fund and retire- ment/death beneﬁt etc, for more than one, year, to furnish full particulars of their case to the Commission so as to enable the Commission to make an indepth study of the problem and to formulate its views 111 the matter.

In pursuance of this advertisement, one Sh. P. K. Bakshi, Personnel Manager, ' National Iron & Steel Co), P. 0. Belurmath, Distt. Howrah, W.B. has addressed to Commission his application dated 20/24-5-90 in this regard. We enclose herewith a photo-copy of the aforesaid application dated'20/24-5-90 of the said employee/his legal represeritatives/nominees for your reﬁerence which is self-explanatory.

Since the Law Commission is required to carry out the Post-audit of socio- economic Laws and to take all such, measure as may be necessary to harness Law and the legal process in the service of the poor, you are requested to give priority to this letter and--

(i) Send concrete factual information pertaining to the complaint of the said person; -

(ii) Your views regarding the said complaint; and

(iii) The cause of the delay;

Within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter.

Your cooperation and urgent response will be highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(Additional Law Oﬂicer) Encl : as above ' 62 APPENDIX Icvn OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER WEST BENGAL THE ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS HOWRAH LOCAL OFFICE 24 BELLILIOUS ROAD Ref No. A/015/163/A. Cell/HLO/127 é 31-8-90 To I The Additional Law Oﬂioer, Govt. of India Ministsy of Law and Justice, Depth of Legal Affairs, 7th Floor, 'A' wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi SUBJECT : Non payment of P.F.; in respect of Parsuram Singh & others p Sir, A subject cited above.

In this connection it is to state I t t:

already been authorised & cheque iss ;

lodged by the Personnel Mana r, . R . Bakshi of M/s. National Iron & Steel i Co. (1984) Ltd, it is stated that on s M 1 accumulated in this Office mainly due "

to non-deposited of P.F. contr utio I V 1' "by the management. I-Iowevet, most of the cases are being dispo 011' M Out of these a lot of cases haveialread A detailed report may be sent to youriif the A/c Nos. in respect of the involve persons are made available in this ofﬁice; from your end.

claim case of Sri Parsuram Singh, has processed and the amounts authorised'; 2 Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(N.R. RAUT) Kindly refer to your letter%No. 6&3) $-LC (LS) Part IV-392 dt. 9-8-9,0 on the E ' Rs. 37,500. Regarding the cornphint ; .

ing speciﬁc deposit by the Company. )5 ' for Regional P.F. Commissioner, W.B. Howrah Local V Oﬁice 63 93-M/J(N) 273 M of LJ & CA--6(X)-9-8-94-CW3

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Law Commission Report

Need For Creating Office Of Ombudsman