Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal targets the Order dated 25-05-2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in CC No. 105/2016, whereof the complaint has been partly allowed.

In short, case of the Appellant/Complainant is that, although the Respondent No. 2 was at fault, the Respondent No. 1 did not act tough for which settlement of his provident fund dues got unnecessarily delayed.  It is submitted that the EPF account cannot be treated as inoperative account on the ground of dismissal as it has been disputed before the Labour Court and after reaching the age of retirement, Appellant filed the claim before the Respondent No. 1.

Decision with reasons

Appellant personally contested the case.  On the other hand, Respondents were represented by their respective Ld. Advocates. At the time of hearing all sides were heard at length.  We have also perused the material on record.

 It is submitted by the Appellant that he was illegally dismissed from service by the Respondent No. 2.  Therefore, he moved a case before the Labour Court and the same is still pending.  After attaining the age of superannuation, he claimed his PF dues from the Respondent No. 1.  However, as the said claim was not settled for long, he was compelled to lodge the instant complaint before the Ld. District Forum and only then, his claim was settled.  He alleged that both the Respondents were responsible for the same.  It is further stated by him that although the Respondent No. 1 paid his EPF dues, but interest upon it has unjustly and illegally been not paid on the ground that an inoperative account does not earn any interest under Para 72(6) of the EPF Scheme.  In support of his contention, the Appellant referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagadish Kumar v. EPF Commissioner.

On the other hand, it is argued by the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that earlier the Respondent No. 2 was an exempted establishment.  Subsequently, such exemption was withdrawn w.e.f. 25-03-2010 and thereafter, first year annual accounts for the year 2010-11 have been processed soon after receipt of past accumulation statement.  However, after expiry of 36 months, the account of the Appellant became inoperative.  As per Gazette Notification dated 15-01-2011, issued by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India, no interest was payable from the date on which the account becomes inoperative. It was to be effective from 01-04-2011. Therefore, no interest was credited to the said account w.e.f. 01-04-2011. The Ld. Advocate also stated that PF amount of Rs. 2,17,485/- has already been paid to the Appellant and at present  no amount is lying to his credit.  Although the Appellant claimed interest, the same is not admissible in terms of Gazette Notification dated 15-01-2011.  Lastly, the Ld. Advocate contended that the facts and circumstances of the referred case vis-à-vis present one being altogether different, the same has got no bearing in this case.

On going through the impugned order, it appears that the Ld. District Forum held the Respondent No. 2 entirely responsible for the delay in settlement of Appellant’s EPF claim and accordingly fixed its responsibility.  The Ld. District Forum also noted that the Respondent No. 2 did seek explanation from the Respondent No. 1 for not acting to the true spirit of the EPF Act.  Accordingly, the Ld. District Forum did not find any fault with the Respondent No. 1.       

It appears from the petition of complaint itself that acting on the prayer of the Appellant, the Respondent No. 1 asked the Respondent No. 2 to send back the concerned form duly attested.  However, the Respondent No. 2 instead of complying with such directive, forwarded the same to the Appellant alleging improper filling up of the form against which the Appellant lodged complaint with the Respondent No. 1 in due course.  Ultimately, during pendency of the complainant case, the Respondent No. 1 paid Rs. 2,17,485/- to the Appellant in order to settle his PF claim.

By furnishing a copy of the Gazette Notification dated 15-01-2011 the Respondent No. 1 sought to prove that its action was fully in conformity with aforesaid notification.  

Be it, however, mentioned that vide Notification No. G.S.R. 1065(E) dated 11-11-2016, the Ministry of Labour & Employment has amended Para 72(6) of the Scheme.  By virtue of such amendment, even inoperative accounts nowadays earn interest.  In view of this, the probability of deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No. 1 cannot be ruled out with certainty.  We afraid, lack of requisite documents tied our hands to decide the matter from this end.

In view of this, we deem it fit and proper to remand the case to the Ld. District Forum to figure out as to whether or not payment has been made to the Appellant in accordance with afore-mentioned Notification dated 11-11-2016. We make it clear that, it would be the primary responsibility of the Respondent No. 1 to prove the bona fide of its action.  If the Respondent No. 1 does not furnish cogent documentary proof to substantiate its claim, then the Ld. District Forum shall fix up the responsibility of the Respondent No. 1 accordingly. 

Insofar as Appellant has not sought any relief against the Respondent No. 2 in this Appeal, it is presumed that he has no further grievance against the Respondent No. 2 and therefore, the latter is hereby left of the hook.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest in part against the Respondent No. 1 and dismissed against the Respondent No. 2. Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 21-05-2018. On receipt of requisite documents, the Ld. District Forum shall expeditiously decide the case appropriately.