Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the Order dated 30-11-2018 of the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in CC/105/2016, this Appeal is preferred for setting aside the said decision.

The dispute relates to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in the matter of settlement of Appellant’s Provident Fund claim.

Despite proper service of notice upon the Respondent No. 2, it did not turn up before this Commission.  So, at the time of hearing, I have heard the submission advanced by the Appellant and Respondent No. 1.  I have also gone through the available material on record minutely.

Be it mentioned here that initially the case was disposed of by the Ld. District Forum on 25-05-2017 against which an Appeal bearing no. A/617/2017 was preferred before this Commission.  Vide order dated 20-03-2018, the Appeal was allowed in part and the matter was remitted back to the Forum below for re-adjudication of the same.  Subsequently, vide its order dated 30-11-2018, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the case and accordingly, this Appeal was preferred by the Appellant.

It appeared that the Ld. District forum dismissed the complaint case on account of pendency of a case before the Labour Commission.  It went terribly wrong in appreciating the fact that pendency of a case before the said Forum, which was filed for altogether different reason, could not be a legitimate ground for dismissal of the complaint case under consideration.

Appellant argued his case in person.  It was submitted by the Appellant that he was illegally terminated from service by the Respondent No. 2 and so he disputed such dismissal order before the second Labour Court, Kolkata.  It was also submitted by him that, after attaining the superannuation age, he submitted the claim form before the Respondent No. 1 for getting it attested through the Respondent No. 2.  Allegedly, the Respondent No. 2, instead of doing the needful, re-directed it to him alleging that the form was not filled up properly.  Holding the Respondent squarely responsible for non-settlement of his claim, the Appellant filed the complaint case.  He lastly submitted that in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Jagdish Kumar v. Employees’ Provident Fund Commissioner (CWP No. 10071 of 2014), the Respondent No. 1 was liable to pay interest even in respect of inoperative account, but he was denied payment of the same most illegally. 

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 argued that the service of the Appellant was terminated on 12-04-2007 and he attained the superannuation age on 31-12-2011.  As per record, the Appellant did not earn any salary w.e.f. 13-04-2007 and therefore, interest was credited to his account up to 31-03-2011.  The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the Appellant neither signed the claim form nor submitted his bank details with the PF authority and as such it was not in a position to settle his PF claim earlier.  Ultimately, acting upon the direction of the Ld. District Forum dated  02-02-2017, the Appellant provided his bank particulars to this Respondent and thereafter, due payment was remitted to the bank account of the Appellant on 09-02-2017.  It was also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that after his dismissal from services on 12-04-2007, the Appellant was never re-instead in his service nor got any salary wages from his employer and as such, no supplementary contribution had been received in respect of the Appellant; neither any part of his PF amount already settled but received back undelivered.  As such, the Notification dated 11-11-2016 got not applicability in the present case. 

The case of the Respondent No. 2 before the Ld. District Forum was that it fulfilled all its statutory obligations by deducting and depositing the contribution of the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1.  Further case of the Respondent No. 2 was that the Appellant did not sign the Form No. 19 in presence of the authorized person of the company as stipulated in the concerned form and although the Appellant was repeatedly asked to ensure due compliance in this regard, he did not come forward to fulfill his obligation.  That apart, the F-19 form was submitted directly to the PF office without the signature of the authorized person which too delayed settlement of his claim.  The Respondent No. 2 denied any laches on its part.

On the basis of above averments, I frame two issues for determination in this Appeal, i.e., whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents and whether the Appellant deserves any further interest in respect of his inoperative PF account.

Para 72(5)(d) of the EPF Scheme stipulates that if the applicant is unable to send the claim application through the employer or duly attested by him, for any reason whatsoever, he may forward it 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.

In view of this, there was hardly any reason for the Respondent No. 2 to re-direct the same to the Appellant.  Given that the Claim Form was routed through the Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 2 was duty bound return it to the Respondent No. 1 duly attested within the stipulated time frame.  Looking from this aspect, there was hardly any room for any two opinions as to the fact that  the Respondent No. 2 was largely at fault. 

However, that was no sufficient reason for the Respondent No. 1 to remain a fence sitter.  The statute bestows ample power to the Respondent No. 1 to compel an errant employer behave appropriately.  Thanks to the muted handling of the Appellant’s case by the Respondent No. 1, as I find, settlement of instant claim unnecessarily got delayed for years together.   While the Form was not returned within the stipulated time frame, the Respondent No. 1 should have acted tough and took all the necessary steps to settle the claim of the Appellant at the earliest. Being the statutory authority, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondent No. 1 to act in a befitting manner so as to impart the benefit of this social welfare legislation to the beneficiary which it did not do. 

It is hard to believe that, at first on account of non-signature and/or non-attestation of the Form No. 19, and thereafter for want of bank particulars of the Appellant, the entire settlement process got delayed for years together. It brings the worst light upon the competence of any organization that is incapable of sorting out such trifle matters.

It is quite discernible that none of the Respondents acted to the true spirit of the Act.  Accordingly, in my considered opinion, both the Respondents should be held accountable for the misery of the Appellant.

Coming to the second aspect, it is though claimed by the Respondent No. 1 that it was not liable to pay any interest in respect of the inoperative account of the Appellant, on a reference to the citation referred to hereinabove, I find that the Respondent No. 1 cannot deny payment of interest in respect of the inoperative account of the Appellant. 

In view of this, I deem it appropriate to direct the Respondent No. 1 to pay accrued interest in respect of the inoperative account of the Appellant for the intervening period between 01-04-2011 and 09-02-2017.  Both the Respondents shall pay Rs. 25,000/- each as compensation to the Appellant. Respondents are directed to pay the entire decreetal sum within a period of 40 days from this day, i.d., the defaulting Respondent(s) shall be further liable to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the proportionate portion of the decreetal sum from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made.

The Appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.  Consequent thereto, the impugned order is hereby set aside.