DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Dinesh S/o Sh.Shiv Nath, H.No.559, Village Hallomajra, UT, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, SCO No.4-7, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2.       M/s Laxmi Manufacturer, Plot No.29/2, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, through Managing Director.

Present Address :- M/s Laxmi Farstners Limited, Village Kuranwala, Tehsil Derra Bassi, District Mohali (Punjab) through Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

ARGUED BY: Sh.Satyavir Singh, Authorised Agent for the                                     complainant.

                      Sh.Raj Kumar, Counsel for OP No.1.

                      Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Counsel for OP No.2.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Dinesh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 - 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs) with the following allegations :-

                   The complainant is an ex-employee of M/s Laxmi Manufacturers Private Limited, Plot No.29/2, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh – OP No.2. OP No.1 deducted Provident Fund Employee’s share from the salary of the complainant during his service.  The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – OP No.1 also issued employer code 14005 and employee provident fund No.16 to the complainant. OP No.2 terminated the service of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant contacted and visited the OP No.2 several times but OP No.2 did not fill up or attested the provident fund form No.19, 10-C, 5 and 3A etc. of the complainant. OP No.2 violated mandatory duty of employer described under para 72(5)(a)(b) & (c) of EPF Scheme. The complainant filled up the forms and submitted in the office of OP No.1 on 18.2.2008 and visited the office of OP No.1 several times but OP No.1 failed to perform his statutory/legal duty, which amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service.  The request letter dated 18.2.2008 was returned with the forms through letter No.1/PN/11247/7862 dated 21.10.2008 with the remarks that in this number the name of employee is Ram Parshad as per office record available. The complainant again submitted forms on 21.7.2009 and copy of acknowledgment is Annexure  C-1. The same was also returned vide letter No.11247/135/2257 dated 6.8.2009 with remarks that the signature of the complainant did not match with office record. OP No.1 again returned the forms vide letter No.PN-11247/135/801 dated 20.8.2009 with remarks that the employer authorized signatures not matched with the office record.  The complainant resubmitted the complete forms in the office of OP No.1 after proper attestation of forms from the Gazetted Officer Asstt. Labour Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh according to rules/instruction 7 for filling up the application (form No.19) of Provident Funds along with letter dated 7.12.2009. OP No.1 did not recognize/accept the signature of Asstt. Labour Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh and wrote a letter to the Enforcement Officer vide letter No.11247/135/a/SI/4844 dated 18.12.2009, copy of which is Annexure C-2, to get the attestation form from OP No.2. The Enforcement Officer wrote a letter No.PF/CH/PN/11247/xxx dated 24.12.2009 to OP No.2 and handed over the forms No.19, 10C+5+10+3A, copy of which is Annexure C-3, of the complainant and advised to attest these withdrawal forms and forward the same to the office of RPFC Sector 17, Chandigarh – OP No.1. The Enforcement Officer also visited the Chandigarh address of OP No.2 and got the new address of OP No.2 i.e. M/s Laxmi Manufacturers, Village – Kuranwala, Barwala Road, Tehsil Derra Bassi, District Mohali (Punjab) vide letter, copy of which is Annexure C-4. However, Mr.Ashok Mengi, Enforcement Officer wrote a letter No.A/S-I/PN/11247/135 dated 12.3.2010 to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – Annexure C-5 intimating that no firm exists at Village Kuranwala, Derra Bassi. The complainant again submitted the form to OP No.1, who returned the same vide letter dated 13.9.2010 with the remarks that the father’s name of the complainant and his date of joining were different according to office record in nomination report. The complainant submitted an application under RTI Act 2005 to OP No.1 and he vide letter dated 8.5.2012 – Annexure C-6 replied that the complaint was not pertaining to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he is a poor, low educated and unemployed person and the OPs are harassing him for the past 14 years. The complainant deposited the forms in the office of OP No.1 and visited that office, copy of acknowledgment slip is Annexure C-7. Despite a number of representations, OP No.1 has not heard the legal and genuine request of the complainant. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He has made a prayer for a direction to the OPs to make the payment of Provident Fund amount with proper calculation from the date of joining till date and Rs.50,000/- as compensation.   

2.                In his written reply, OP No.1 has pleaded that as per record return 6-A the EPF account No.PN/11247/135 pertains to the name of Dinesh Kumar – I as mentioned at S.No.79 and EPF account No.PN/11247/128 pertains to the name of Dinesh (F) as mentioned at S.No.72 of the Return   6-A, copy of which is Annexure R-1. As per office record, the EPF account No.PN/11247/128 of Dinesh (F) has been settled. As per balance account statement, the amount of Rs.11,294/- including interest as on 31.3.2012 as EPF and Rs.2166/- as EPS lying in the EPF account No.PN/11247/135  and the same pertains to the name of Dinesh Kumar – I. It has been averred that except Return 6-A no other record is available in the office of OP No.1 as OP No.2 has not submitted the requisite form relating to the complainant and closed the unit in the year 1997-98 as admitted by OP No.2 in his application dated 14.1.2013. It has been averred that OP No.1 is unable to settle the claim of the complainant in the absence of requisite documents. It has been averred that the claim forms, which were submitted by the complainant, were not complete in all respect as per provisions of EPF Scheme and OP No.1 vide order dated 18.12.2009 directed the Enforcement Officer to get the claim forms attested from the employer. As per order of OP No.1, the Enforcement Officer visited the establishment (M/s Laxmi Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. 29/2, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh) on 24.12.2009 and came to know that the plot had been sold and the establishment had been shifted to Village Kuranwala, Barnala Road, Derabassi. The Enforcement Officer was directed to get the claim forms attested from the employer vide order dated 18.1.2010. However, the Enforcement Officer visited the establishment and submitted the report that no firm in the name of M/s Laxmi Manufacturer exists at Village Kuranwala, Derabassi. It has been stated that the claim forms were returned to the complainant as the same were not completed in all respect. In regard to information furnished to the complainant under RTI Act, attention has been drawn to Return 6-A – Annexure R-1. It has been averred that RTI application was given under the name of Dinesh instead of Dinesh Kumar – I. It has been stated that the employer OP No.2 had not submitted  requisite documents/forms relating to EPF account No.PN/11247/135 except return 6-A for the year 1996-97. It has been stated that OP No.1 has made possible efforts to settle the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on his part.

3.                OP No.2 - M/s Laxmi Manufacturer has submitted that the complaint is time barred because OP No.2 closed its unit in the year 1997 and the present complaint was filed in the year 2012 after a period of more than 15 years. Entire records have been destroyed by OP No.2. OP No.2 has even surrendered its name with the Registrar of companies. It has been stated that M/s Laxmi Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. stands closed long back and had no nexus with M/s Laxmi Fastners Limited. It has been further stated that the complainant has not disclosed his date of appointment/date of leaving the job etc. with OP No.2, in the absence of which, the complaint is not maintainable. It has been stated that OP No.1 had issued employer’s code No.PN/11247 to OP No.2. OP No.2 had not terminated the services of the complainant at any point of time as is projected in the complaint. It has been further stated that OP No.2 was having more than 100 EPF members and no one has disputed about the payment of contributions etc.  Under the provisions of EPF Act, it was obligatory for the complainant to submit the required forms for withdrawal of the EPF contributions as per norms laid down in the Act. The complainant was having option to send the said forms in writing to OP No.2 for signatures or to get the same attested from the other authorized persons as per norms prescribed by OP No.1. The complainant was under obligation to get the EPF amount transferred to present employer. It has been averred that the complainant has not produced the copies of the forms and letters mentioned in the complaint. It has been further stated that OP No.2 has not rendered any of the alleged services to the complainant, for which, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is to be assessed by this Forum and the complaint is not maintainable against OP No.2.  

4.                In his rejoinder, it has been pleaded by the complainant that Mr.Ravinder Kumar, Managing Director of M/s Laxmi Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. is occupier of M/s Laxmi Fasteners Ltd. and is competent and responsible to attest the signatures of the complainant on the forms No.19, 10, 10C and 5. It has also been stated the employer code in the complaint be read as 11247 in place of 14005 and the Employee Provident Fund number may be read as 135 in place of 16 in the first para of the complaint because this is a typographical mistake.

5.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                We have gone through the evidence on record and heard the arguments addressed by the authorized agent for the complainant and the learned Counsel for the OP No.1 and OP No.2.  

7.                As far as the objection relating to the complaint  being barred by limitation is concerned, it is true that the complainant has not indicated in the complaint as to when he was employed by M/s Laxmi Manufacturer, Plot No.29/2, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh and when his services were terminated. The written statement of OP No.2 i.e. Laxmi Manufacturer shows that OP No.2 had closed its unit in the year 1997 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant after a period of more than 15 years. Further the entire records have been destroyed by OP No.2. However, at the same time the copy of Return 6-A – Annexure R-1 produced by OP No.1 shows that name of one Mr.Dinesh Kumar – I is mentioned at S.No.79 and the balance in his account including interest is Rs.11,294/- as EPF and an amount of Rs.2166/- is also lying as EPS. The account number of the said Dinesh Kumar – I is PN/11247/135. It is important to note that OP No.1 also sent a letter to OP No.2 on 24.12.2009, copy of which is Annexure C-3, whereby, OP No.2 was asked to attest the withdrawal form of outgoing subscriber i.e. Dinesh-I. Thus, the evidence shows that some amount of the complainant is prima facie lying with OP No.1 in his account No.PN/11247/135. We are of the opinion that the said amount of the complainant is lying in trust with OP No.1, which he is bound to refund to the complainant. In case of death of subscriber even his legal representatives are entitled to get back the said amount. OP No.1 cannot refuse to refund the amount on the ground of the complaint being barred by limitation.  So, we do not feel that the complaint filed by the complainant in the year 2012 is barred by limitation.

8.                Adverting to the question of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, it is noteworthy that the allegations in the complaint are vague, which do not indicate as to when the complainant joined the service of M/s Laxmi Manufacturer – OP No.2 and when his services were terminated. Even the employer code and employee provident fund number mentioned in the complaint are incorrect because in his rejoinder, the complainant has made a special request that the employer code be read as 11247 in place of 14005 and the Employee Provident Fund number be read as 135 in place of 16 in the first para of the complaint. Furthermore, the complainant has not indicated the dates of submitting the forms in the office of OP No.1 on different occasions. The case of OP No.2 i.e. M/s Laxmi Fastners Limited (mentioned in the title of the complaint as M/s Laxmi Farstners Limited), who is stated to be the successor of M/s Laxmi Manufacturer, shows that M/s Laxmi Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. stands closed long back and it has no nexus with M/s Laxmi Fastners Limited.  Furthermore, the said unit was closed in the year 1997 and entire records have been destroyed by OP No.2. OP No.2 has even surrendered its name with the Registrar of companies. It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that Mr.Ravinder Kumar, Occupier of M/s Laxmi Fastners Ltd. was the Managing Director of M/s Laxmi Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd., therefore, he is competent to attest the forms of the complainant. However, we fail to understand that when OP No.2 has destroyed the entire record of M/s Laxmi Manufacturers, how Mr.Ravinder Kumar can attest the withdrawal forms of the complainant without consulting any record. In regard to the liability of OP No.1, it is pertinent that the copy of letter dated 18.12.2009 – Annexure C-2 shows that the Area Enforcement Officer was asked to get form No.19 & 10-C of the complainant attested from the ex-employer of the said member as the employer had refused to attest the form. Sh.S.P.Sehgal, Enforcement Officer, Chandigarh vide letter dated 24.12.2009 – Annexure C-3 asked M/s Laxmi Manufacturer to attest the withdrawal forms and forward the same to OP No.1 within three days. The undated letter – Annexure C-4 shows that Sh.S.P.Sehgal informed OP No.1 that he visited the said establishment and found that the said plot had been purchased by M/s Gurnam Singh & Sons and they were in possession of the same since the last 8 years. It was reported that the establishment of OP No.2 had been shifted to Village Kuranwala, Barwala Road, Derra Bassi. The letter dated 12.3.2010 – Annexure C-5 shows that one Ashok Mengi, Enforcement Officer informed OP No.1 that no firm in the name of M/s Laxmi Manufacturers was existing at Village Kuranwala, Dera Bassi. Since the claims complete in all respects have not been submitted along with the requisite documents with OP No.1, therefore, the case of the complainant could not be settled by OP No.1. However, we feel that the complainant, who is a poor semi literate ex-worker of M/s Laxmi Manufacturers, is not in a position to take any further action particularly when the occupier of M/s Laxmi Fastners has refused to attest his forms in the absence of any record of M/s Laxmi Manufacturer. We feel that the officials of OP No.1 should have come forward to assist the complainant, who is a poor worker, in refunding his amount without going into any technicalities. We are of the view that it would be just and proper if the complainant makes a fresh application for withdrawal of the amount with particulars available with him/available in the complaint file with OP No.1, with his attested signatures from the bank, where he is holding account along with his identity proof such as voter identification card/ration card with an indemnity bond undertaking to make the payment in case some other claimant is later on found entitled to claim the amount, then OP No.1 can certainly release the amount of the complainant lying deposited with him.

9.                For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed. It is directed that the complainant shall submit a fresh application form for withdrawal of his amount of Rs.11,294/- including interest as EPF and Rs.2166/- as EPS in the account No.PN/11247/135 within 15 days of receipt of the certified copy of this order with OP No.1. The application shall be accompanied with attested signatures of the complainant from the authorities of the bank, in which, he is holding an account. He shall also submit his identity proof such as voter identification card/ration card and one indemnity bond with undertaking to refund the amount with OP No.1. Thereafter, OP No.1 shall settle the claim of the complainant within 30 days of submitting of the application. If the complainant fails to submit the application with OP No.1 along with the documents in question within the above period the complaint shall be deemed to have been dismissed. If OP No.1 fails to settle the case of the complainant within 30 days of filing the application, he shall be liable to make payment of a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

10.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.