NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1358/2010

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMI CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. MANCHANDA & CO.

13 May 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 07 Apr 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1358/2010
(Against the Order dated 30/12/2009 in Appeal No. 1781/2002 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONERThrough Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (Legal) Delhi, SCO No. 4-7, Sector-17Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. AMI CHANDR/o. Opposite B.K. Public School, Palwal, Tehsil PalwalFaridabadHaryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENT
For the Appellant :M/S. MANCHANDA & CO.
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 13 May 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Respondent/complainant was an employee of Haryana State Cooperative Bank Limited.  He retired from the services on                   31st October, 1996.  By the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to pay interest to the complainant for the period 31.3.1996 to 31.10.1996 which had not been paid earlier and Rs.19,185/- deducted on account of employer’s share from the amount due from the respondent/complainant.  District Forum directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.19,185/- deducted towards the employer’s share

-2-

from the amount due from the respondent and to recover the same from the employer.  Admittedly, the petitioner was liable to pay interest from 31.3.1996 to 31.10.1996.  In so far as the sum of Rs.19,185/- is concerned, no harm has been caused to the petitioner as the petitioner has been put at liberty to recover the same from the employer i.e. Haryana State Cooperative Bank Limited which is a Government undertaking.  No ground for interference in impugned order is made out.  Dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT