1. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant has filed this case against the O.P.s for release of his EPF amount alongwith compensation.

    2. The complainant was appointed as Security Guard under the O.P.No.1 and worked in the office of O.P.No.3 from 1.9.2012 as Gardner before O.P.No.3. In the meantime the O.P.No.2 has changed his franchise from July, 2012.After the appointment the complainant has performed his duty to the best satisfaction to Authority and the O.PNo.3 has issued an experience certificate in favour of the complainant. The O.P.No.1 and 2 has not granted any ESI and EPF card though the complainant has approached them on several occasion. Though the O.P.No.1 has deducted his EPF contribution amount from the salary of the complainant he had not deposited the same with the O.PNo.4.Though the complainant has approached the O.P.No.2 for release of his EPF amount they did not take any action which forced the complainant to file this case before this Commission for a direction to release of his EPF amount through the O.P.s

    3. After being noticed the O.Ps appeared in this case and filed their counter in this case. The case of the O.PNo.2 is that the case is not maintainable under section 12 of the C.P.Act. The allegation made by the complainant in his complaint petition are false. The complainant was working under the O.P No3. as Gardner sponsored by the O.P.No.2.It is false to  say that  inspite of approached from the side of the complainant the O.P.No1 and the O.P.No .2  were defaulted and depositing his EPF amount in time. The complainant has been retrenched from his service due to his negligence .The O.P.No.2 has regularly depositing his EPF amount in the account number of the complainant regularly. The O.P. NO.2 further submits the case has no merit and liable to be dismissed. The case of the O.P.No1 is that the complainant has not approached to this Commission with a clean hand as such the compliant is liable to be dismissed as it is not maintainable under law. The O.P.No.1 is only liable for a period of four months from July, 2012 to October, 2012 and E.P.F amount of the complainant has already been deposited in favour of him. The O.P. further submits that the facts stated by the complainant are false and imaginary. The O.P. submits that the statutory deposit of EPF has already been deposited in favour of the complainant and pray for dismissal of the case. The case of the O.PNo.4 is that  the EPF account  number of the complainant OR/BBS/14396/95 is allotted to the complainant his date of jointing of the EPF fund  is 1.13.2013 .The PF contribution of the EPF amount  of the complainant is received by the EPFOs from 1.12.2012 to 30.1.2015 As the complainant  has not filed any claim application  to this office has not settled his EPF dues .So the O.P.No.4 asked on receipt of claim application of the complainant with relevant documents and immediate  action will be taken for release of his dues. So he prays for dismissal of the case.

     4.The complainant filed documents   like Xerox copy of  documents showing the EPF account number and the date of joining of the complainant.

     5.There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant was working as Gardner before the O.P.No.3 on the recommendation of the O.P.No.1  and 2.The E.P.F. amounts were deducted from the salary of the complainant has been deposited with the O.P.No.4 .The  complainant  has claimed for release of his EPF amount before the O.P.No.4  The O.P. No. 4 also admits on receipt of the claim application with relevant documents immediate action will be taken for release of the dues in favour of the complainant.

   Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and documents filed by him, counter filed by the O.Ps we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.P.No.1 and 2 to deposit the EPF amount to the O.P.No.4.The O.P. No.4 also directed to release the EPF amount of the complainant within one month after receipt application from the complainant. The case against the O.P.No.3 is dismissed. This case is disposed of accordingly.

   Order pronounced in the open court udder the seal and signature of the forum this the 31st day of December, 2020.