District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No564/2022.
Date of Institution: 14.10.2022.
Date of Order: 15.11.2023.
Satyavir Singh S/o Sh. Rattan Singh R/o House No. 1422, Ward No.5, Village Banchari, Palwal - 121106
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sector-15A, Faridabad – 121007.
2. The Regional Commissioner, PF Department, Sector-15A, Faridabad.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Parveen Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Ravinder Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Ms. Bhanu Priya Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant joined the opposite party company on 09.01.2013. The services of the complainant continued form 09.01.2013 to September 2020. The opposite party company ie. M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited was in default of making the contributions in the P.F. account of the complainant. It was submitted that the complainant had a complaint in this regard to P.F. department. It was further submitted that the P.F. Department had also sent a show cause notice to the opposite party company in this regard on receiving the complaint from the complainant. The opposite party issued a notice regarding EPF deduction of the complainant on dated 6.8.2019. The complainant gave an affidavit to deduction EPF 3000/- per month in his salary on 09.08.2019. The services of the complainant was terminated by the opposite party company i.e M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited by notice dated 28.08.2020 according to the notice the service of the complainant was terminated with effect from 1.10.2020 intimating him that his service was no further required as daily wages worker. After terminating the services of the complainant the opposite party company i.e. M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited even kept the five months salary i.e. from 2020 to September 2020 of the complainant with them. The complainant made complaints in this regard on 14.09.2020 to 14.10.2020 to the concerned authority. It was submitted that in reference to these complaints the authority gave reply dated 31.10.2020. The opposite party company did not have positive response and did not make the payment of the five months salary of the complainant till date.The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) issue the PF No. allotted to the complainant through them and further deposit slips upto date may also be issued.
b) P.F department may submit the relevant record of the employee and the total amount deposited in the P.F. account including interest upto date.
c) the salary of 5 months to be released to the complainant.
d) M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited may be penalized upto the tune of Rs. 2 lacs for not remitting the record nor depositing the contributions collected from the complainant.
e) The P.F. department may also be directed to deliver the payment upto date for which all the legal formalities are to be completed by the complainant.
f) any other relief which the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the amount of provident fund i.e Rs.66,871/- was deposited through TRRN No. 2002008005065 on dated 13.8.2020 in EPFO to the extent of respective share of the opposite party BSNL. Further , as per the directions of Assistant P.F. Commissioner, EPFO Rgional Office, Sector-15A, Faridabad, the amount of provident fund amounting to Rs.60,240/- vide TRRN No. 2002101001339 date d07.01.2021 was deposited as employee share of complainant by the opposite party BSNL office after adjusting the salary of the complainant, therefore, no amount of alleged salary remains due as against the opposite party BSNL. There was concealment of true facts in the present case. Whereas, the true facts were that the complainant was working as a contract labour in the BSNL when he was disengaged in the year 2002, he raised industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum labour court, by filing I.D. No. 27/2005. In the said case, an award was passed on 19.09.2007 setting aside the terminations and directing the reinstatement of the complainant with effect from December 2002 and back wages to the extent of 25% were also awarded. The opposite party BSNL challenged the said awardbefore Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The writ petition was dismissed on 09.04.2008 and so was LPA No. 316/2008. Therafter the opposite party BSNL filed SLP No. 19105/2009 and it was dismissed on 08.01.2013. The complainant gave up his claim for back wages of 25%.. The complainant was reinstated into service on 27.08.2013. However, he filed OA No.24/2015 before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi insisting that the reinstatement must be effective from 2002. The said QA was disposed off on dated 16.12.2016. Direction was issued for consideration of his case for regularization through a reasoned order. Thereafter the opposite party BSNL passed a detailed order on 27.03.2017 rejecting the claim of the complainant for regularization. The O.A No. 1443/2017 was filed by the complainant before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi challenging the said order dated 27.03.2017 of BSNL and for a direction to the opposite party BSNLK to reconsider the case of the complainant for regularization. The complainant contended that he was in service of BSNL ever since it was constituted, till he attained the age of superannuation and there was absolutely no basis for not regularizing his services. The opposite party BSNL filed a reply opposing the contents of the order dated 27.03.2017. The opposite party BSNL also contended that they had not carried out any recruitment of regular mazdoors, Group-d or Clerk or Typist ever since its formation in the year 2000 and the services of no casual labour, much less contract labourers were regularized. The opposite party BSNL also contended that many employees who were rendered surplus were either given VRS or otherwise discontinued from service. It was further submitted that the aforesaid petition Q.A No. 1443/2017 of complainant was dismissed on dated 16.10.2020 by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as per office record the complainant Id was HRFBD001142300000 and the amount of the complainant was Rs.87,509/- as on 01.04.2022. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another with the prayer to: a) issue the PF No. allotted to the complainant through them and further deposit slips upto date may also be issued. b) P.F department may submit the relevant record of the employee and the total amount deposited in the P.F. account including interest upto date. c) the salary of 5 months to be released to the complainant. d) M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited may be penalized upto the tune of Rs. 2 lacs for not remitting the record nor depositing the contributions collected from the complainant. e) The P.F. department may also be directed to deliver the payment upto date for which all the legal formalities are to be completed by the complainant. f) any other relief which the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the complainant.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Satyavir,, Ex.C-1 – show cause notice, Ex.C-1 – letter dated 07.01.2019, Ex.C-2 – letter dated 03.08.2019 regarding EPF deduction, Ex.C-3 – affidavit,Ex.C-4 – letter dated 31.0.2020 regarding reply of complaint.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated \and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.DX – affidavit of Swait Aggarwal, AGM (Legal) in O/o General Manager, BSNL, Sector15A, Faridabad, Ex.D-1- Authority letter, Ex.D-2 – letter dated 03.08.2019 regarding EPF deduction of Shri Satyavir S/o Rattan Singh daily wage worker,, Ex.D-3 – letter dated 26.08.2019, Ex.D-4 – reminder letter dated 16.3.2020, Ex.D-5 & 6 – letters regarding deposit of PF dues,Ex.D-7 – letter dated 28.8.2020, Ex.D-8 & 9– letters , Ex.D-10 – letter dated 06.10.2020 regarding deposit of EPF dues in respect of Shri satyavir,Ex.D-12 – letter dated 12.01.2021 regarding deposit of EPF dues, Ex.D-13 – payment confirmation receipt, Ex.D-14 – O.A. No. 1443 of 2017.
As per evidence of opposite party No.2, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Kesang N. Tenzng, Regional Provident Fund Commission II (Legal), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Sector-15A, Fa,ridabad, Ex/R-1 – office memo.
7. It is evident from letter dated 14.08.2020 vide Ex. D-5 the amount of provident fund amounting to Rs.66,871/- was deposited through TRRN No. 2002008005065 on 13.08.2020 in the EPFO to the extent of respective share of the opposite party BSNL. As per letter dated 12.01.2021 vide Ex.D-12 that as per the directions of Assistant P.F Commissioner, EPFO Regional Office, Sector-15A, Faridabad the amount of provident fund amounting to Rs.60,240/- was deposited vide TRRN No. 2002101001339 dated 07.01.2021 as employee’s share of complainant by the opposite party BSNL office after adjusting the salary of the complainant. During the course of arguments, counsel for opposite party No.2 has requested for an adjournment to verify the payment made by opposite party No.1. On the next date of hearing, Ms. Bhanu Priya Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.2 appeared and admitted this fact that they are ready to make the payment in due course of law. This shows the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2 has been proved. Hence, the complaint is allowed.
8. Opposite party No.2 is directed to process the claim of the complainant the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and pay the due amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 15.11.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
