-4-
@12%of the employees as employees share. Such deduction amount of EPF dues share of employees and employer share @13.16% which was collected from the Principal employer has deposited in the establishment code of employees bearing EPFO establishment coverage code OR/BBS/OO/432000 in the Member serial ID number from the month of July 2012 to November 2015.
For claim of the deposited contribution the complainant has not applied in the prescribed claim application form No.19 and 10 C as such the both employee and employer share has deposited in the member ID number since July 2012 to November 2015 till termination . The OP No.1 has opened the number ID in EPFO head of the complainants for deposit the dues of the contribution of EPFO both
the shares in the form of challan at SBI Bolangir . The OP 1 has deposited the contribution dues in department of EPFO BBSR in the respective head of code number OR/BBS/14842/000/00000,41,42,53,66,56,52,110,45,55,46,47,48,50,44 and 51. The OP No.1 is excluded from the liability and the said amount of dues of the complainants contribution shall be realized with usual interest from the EPFO, RPFC BBSR.
No security amount has collected from the complainants at any time it is false and frivolous but stated in Para7 that there was a agreement with the Govt. Dept. as the department was principal employer and the Op.1 was the contractor and employer of the complainants as and when in the performance of the duty of complainants can retrenched from the duty by the employer/contractor/OPP.
The OP No.1 relied on the SBI challan paid by him.
5.The OP No.2 EPFO RPFC Bhubaneswar who challenge the Jurisdiction but admitted the fact in two fold and the two periods of contribution one is contributory period where the EPFO received the contribution amount from OP No.1 and the second part is the non-contributory period where the EPFO did not received any amount from the employer i.e. OP No.1 in the shape of contribution and relied on the document legal cell U.O. Note OR/PF/BBC/LC/CC case
-5-
No.57/2017 621(2)dated13.01.2023 vide letter No. U.O. note No. OR/BBS CC-1/14842/5428 dated 10.03.2023 and urged to paid the amount of contributory period only as per the statement of accounts as on 09.10.2023 of 14 number of complainants and in a petition dated 11.10.2023 the OP No.2 admitted that as regards Sri Bikash Chandra Sahu , PF A/C No. OR/14892/66 it is verified that the name is mismatched with the ledger where in the name recorded as Bikash Selma and opined to submit Joint declaration of all such complainants for correction of member details in the EPFO records.
6.Heard the complainant and perused the materials on record with submission and vehement denials of the learned advocate for the OPS with arguments.
7.Taking the above facts and circumstances here in this case emerged 4 issues for
the Just decision of the case those are as follows.
1. Issue No.1 whether the complaint is bar by Jurisdiction.
2. Issue No.2 whether the Man service provider OP No.1 is responsible for
the disturbance in contribution of EPFO fund and collection of any security
money.
3. Issue No.3 whether the EPFO is responsible for its faulty procedure for
payment which amounts to deficiency in service.
4. Issue No.4 whether the complainants are entitlement for any remedy.
To meet the issue No.1 it is pertinent to mention here that the employees get pension benefit from provident fund authorities such organisations comes under the C.P. Act. And held be accountable for deficiency in service , as because the provident fund commissioner who is the person responsible for the working of 1995 pension scheme must be held to be a service giver with in the meaning of Sec 2 (1) (0) C.P. Act. The apex court also rightly said the relationship between employees and PF organisation is not that of a Master and servant, as rendering free service or rendering the service under a contract of personal service was absent in such case as such there is no bar to adjudicate or it oust the jurisdiction of the DCDRC. Issue No.1 answer accordingly.
-6-
Regarding issue no 2 It is admitted that the op no . 1 was the man power service provider and engage these 15 complainants with DEO/DI of school DPMU MDM cell ,District Bolangir, as a bonafide bidder for the same it also admitted that the employer O.P No 1 paid the EPF contribution of the complainants maintaining the ratio as per the statute by receiving the share of the principal employer regularly by SBI challan mention against the employees individually for which an individual ID was used for the payment against each contributor namely –Suraj Mahana -0000041, Bhanjakishore Gouda – 0000042, Bhibuti Bhusan Patel-0000053, Bikash Sahu-0000066, Sagarika Khamari-0000056, Sugyani Kumar Pattanaik- 0000052, Durbadala Sahu -0000110, Ramakanta Mahapatra –
0000045,Sushil Meher-0000055,Rupesh Kumar Sandh -0000046, Braja Mohan Sha-0000047, Prakash Chandra Selma -0000048, Debasis Gadtiya -0000050, Ananta Kumar Bag -0000044, Ashis Panigrahi -0000051,Which is reflected on the SBI challan found on the record .
If we take into consideration of the SBI challan it seems that the op .no .1 not deposited the amount in regular monthly basis which is corborated with the statement produced by op no. 2 UR note No OR/BBS/cc-1/-14842/5428 dated 10.03. 2023 where the contributory periods are 7/12 to 1/13,8/14 to1/15 and 6/15 and the periods non- contributory periods are 2/ 13 to 7/ 14, 2/15 to 5/15 as such there is deficiency in service on the part of op no 1 for payment of EPF contribution where as the employees Join on date 1.7.2012 except Bikash Kumar Sahu and Durbadala Sahu who Joined between 26-3-2013 to 31.03.2013 as per the Joining order found on the record the complainant field the affidavit evidence regarding the collection of security money which presumed to be true that after given sufficient opportunity to the OP No.1 to cross examined the affidavit evidence but the OP.No.1 failed to do so to establish any credential in favour of him rather avoiding the hearing process by the technique of absenteeism through time petition . This commission bound to issue the B.L.W. against the OP.No.1 for his appearance but the executing machinery i.e. Bolangir police is unable to arrest
-7-
him and produce before the commission , where as the Op.No.1 resides within the Jurisdiction of S.P. Bolangir.
The commission is not a simple sitter or a spectator as such the case is posted for order. This commission found the malafide attitude of OP No.1 towards the court of law. After gone through the evidence on record it is found that the security money taken by the OP No.1 from 7 person it is Rs.40,000/- Rs.80,000/- from 3 person, Rs.60,000/- from 2 person Rs.50,000/- from 2 person and Rs.70,000/- from one person total 15 person amounts to Rs.8,00,000/-with a condition to return the same after mature of the contractual service period but the security amount taken by the Op.No.1 not returned to the appointees after termination of contract. In other words the security deposit was taken to avoid the risk, and for disciplinary action or to full fill any financial loss occur due to misbehaviour the appointees . It is purely fraudulent unreasonable , unfair and
deceptive practice amounts to deficiency in service. On the part OP No.1 . issue No.2 answer accordingly.
To meet the issue No.3 it is pertinent to mention here that the EPFO is a statutory body provided under Labour and welfare ministry Government of India. The moot question here in the case is that all the 15 complainants wants to withdraw & close the EPF fund permanently for the period from 01.07.2012 to November 15 the contractual service completed by the complainants. The only problem with the EPFO . RMFC BBSR is that there are 15 complainants out of which vide ID No. 0000066 Bikash Sahu whose name reflected in the SBI challan found on the record changed in the EPFO A/C ID No.0000066- as Bikash Selma which is a gross error of the EPFO RMFC BBSR being the responsible body the EPFO should have corrected the same before the litigation arise but after litigation it is found that Bikash Sahu is named as Bikash Selma is a bad practice and such type of erroneous practices are come under the definition of deficiency of service .As such the EPFO has to correct the name on the basis of matriculation (HSC) certificate as Aadhar is no more a reliable document in EPFO as per the guide line of2023. Issue No.3 answer accordingly.
-8-
Taking the fact and circumstances of issue No.2 and 3 the complainants are the employees through the out sourcing service provider OP No.1 and as per EPF
rule the ratio of the employer and employee @12% from their salary and the principal employer share 13.16 % towards EPF contribution . which was paid to the Op1 by the DEO/DI. Of School Bolangir and Op No.1 realize the bill amount including all from the Principal employer i.e. DEO/DI of School on monthly basis.
But the same was not deposited by the OP No.1 in regular basis which is confirmed by EPFO U.O Note No. OR/BBS/CC-114842/5428 dated 10.03.2023. where the EPFO .RPFE. mention the contributory and non –contributory period of payment of the EPF contribution by OP No.1 As such the complainants exempted from any contractual liability and deserved the remedies available according to C.P. Act 2019 . The issue No 4 answer according.
Taking the above facts , circumstance and evidence on record this commission gone thoroughly and after due care and scrutiny found that OP No.1 is liable for deficiency in service as well as the OP No.2 also liable for deficiency in service , mental agony and financial loss with the complainant.
As such we gave our thoughtful consideration in favour of the complainants with the following directions.
ORDER
- The Regional P.F. commissioner BBSR O.P. No.2 is directed to paid the contributed period of contribution by calculating the total amount which has received from the O.P. No.1 @9% interest P.A. to all the complainants within one month from the date of order failing which the entire amount should be paid @ 12 % interest per annum from the date of filing of the case till realization.
Further OP.No.2 is directed no technicalities should be maintain in payment, the payment procedure should be simple and crystal clear that no complainant should suffer more.
-
Further OP No.2 is directed one responsible officer of EPFORO BBSR be appointed to appear before this commission within seven days from the date of order with rectified the name of Bikash Sahu which is Selma and to guide the complainants ,for payment without any failing.
- The OP No.1 is directed to pay all the non-contributed period of the EPF not paid by him in due process of time @9% interest per annum within one month from the date of order failing which the OP No.1 should pay the entire amount @12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of realization.
Further OP No.1 is directed to pay the security amount of Rs.8,00,000/- @9% interest per annum to the complainants within one month from the date of filing of the case till realization failing which the Op No.2 should paid the entire amount @12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
No award as to cost.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TODAY I.E DATED 05th DAY OF February’2024
