AMADALAVALASA COOPERATIVE SUGARS LTD vs KENGUVA MOHANA RAO AND ORS

[1] In this revision petition, challenge has been made to the concurrent findings recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Srikakulam in their order dated 16.09.2003 in consumer complaint, CD No. 80/2000, and confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 1304/2004 dated 21.03.2007, vide which the said consumer complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no. 1, Kenguva Mohan Rao was allowed.

[2] Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1 had joined the services of the petitioner/OP-1 on 22.09.1960. He was suspended from service on 29.05.1969, alleging certain irregularities against him. During the course of employment with OP-1, certain deductions towards provident fund etc. were made from his salary. According to the complainant, during the suspension period also, statutory deductions were made out of the subsistence allowance paid to him and remitted to the concerned authorities. It is alleged by the complainant that after the conclusion of the enquiry against him, the petitioner/OP-1 neither reinstated the complainant nor removed him from service. The complainant submitted several representations to the OP-1 to settle his account and his terminal benefits, but without effect. The OP-3, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner also issued a letter dated 22.02.99 to OP-1, asking him to submit his service particulars in respect of his account No. AP/1964/49, but there was no response from OP-1, meaning thereby that there was deficiency in service on his part. The complainant made prayer in his complaint that the OP-1 should be directed to settle all terminal benefits, including provident fund and a direction should be issued to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to pay provident fund amount after receiving the particulars from OP-1. The complainant also demanded compensation of ?50,000/- towards mental agony/harassment and ?2,000/- as cost of litigation.

[3] The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/OP-1 by filing written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant, on his own, left their service and joined another firm M/s. Foods Fats and Fertilizers Limited, Tadepallegudem on 28.03.1977 and all his accounts were transferred to the said firm. The OP-1 stated that the claim was barred by limitation as the claimant could not have just kept quiet for a period of 23 years. The OP-1 prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.

[4] The OP-3, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner also filed his reply before the District Forum, saying that the complainant was an employee of OP-1 and he was enrolled as a member of the PF Scheme vide account No. AP/1964/49 with effect from 1.07.1966 and that, when he joined his new employer, the accumulations under the old establishment were transferred to his new PF Account No. AP/1982/948 in January 1984. The complainant left the said organisation on 14.12.83 and joined another establishment, M/s Sri Venkatabalaji Jute Mills Limited, Amadalavalasa on 1.1.87 where a fresh P.F. A/c No. AP/16396/1 was allotted to him. A sum of ?13,577/- was transferred from A/c No. AP/1982/948 to his new account. The PF accumulations of the complainant were settled in two phases. The first settlement was made for ?73,231/- in April 1997 and the balance of ?27,005/- was paid in November 1999. Pension was also sanctioned to him vide PPO No. 7935, taking into consideration his service rendered in M/s Foods, Fats & Fertilizers with effect from 1.06.1977. The OP-3 mentioned in their reply that in spite of addressing letters and reminders, the OP-1 failed to furnish the service particulars of the complainant and did not inform whether he opted for family pension. The OP-3 mentioned that if the particulars are given by OP-1 and the employee opts for family pension scheme, the amount, if any, payable to the complainant shall be given with effect from 01.03.1971 till the date of his leaving OP-1. OP-3 stated that OP-1 should be directed to send them reply to their letter dated 22.02.1999 and to furnish the service particulars.

[5] The District Forum after taking into account the pleadings of the parties, directed the OP-1 to settle the terminal benefits including Provident Fund of the complainant by submitting the particulars to OP-3. They also directed OP-1 to pay a sum of ?10,000/- as compensation and ?1,000/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum gave direction to OP-3 also to pay the Provident Fund amount to the complainant after receiving the particulars from OP-1. This order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission by OP-1 by way of first appeal, but the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.03.2007. The State Commission also observed in their order that the complaint was not barred by limitation as it was a continuing cause of action. They stated that OP-1 did not take any action either by way of terminating the services of the complainant or reinstating him after putting him under suspension and hence, he was entitled to receive full salary from OP-1.

[6] During hearing before us, the petitioner/OP-1 submitted his written arguments in which they took the main plea that the claim was filed in the year 2000, whereas the cause of action had arisen in the year 1970; hence the claim was made after more than 30 years. It is also stated that the complainant was charge-sheeted and after the inquiry against him, he was reverted in the year 1970. The complainant had wrongly stated that charges against him were not proved. After reversion to the post of Assistant Accountant, the complainant did not report for duty, rather he approached the Industrial Tribunal alongwith other labour unions and workmen having different demands. Before passing of awards by the Industrial Tribunal, the complainant filed an individual claim by way of petition M.P.124/1974 which was allowed by the Tribunal. However, in a writ petition filed before the Hon''ble High Court of A.P., the said order was set aside and it was directed by the Hon''ble Court that award should be passed in terms of the settlement as a whole and not in individual cases. The Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad then passed an award by which it was stated that the complainant was not entitled for ''reinstatement with back wages.'' The present claim is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation as his reinstatement with back wages was not allowed by the Tribunal in the year 1979. In spite of that, the petitioner had paid the amount of provident fund to the Provident Fund Commissioner by way of a challan for a sum of ?5,976/-.

[7] On behalf of the complainant, the learned counsel filed written synopses as well as led his oral arguments. He stated that following an inquiry against the complainant, he was given punishment of reversion from the post of Chief Accountant to the post of Assistant Accountant and the period of suspension was to be treated on leave as per eligibility. The said order was passed on 22.05.1970, but the petitioner did not allow the complainant to join duty as Assistant Accountant and finally, he was constrained to join a new establishment with effect from 18.03.1977. The learned counsel stated that since the management deducted the amount of PF from his salary as well as subsistence allowance, it was their duty to settle the accounts and make payment of provident fund and other terminal benefits. The petitioner had not provided the services particulars to OP-3, despite they having been issued letter dated 22.02.1999 to them. The order passed by the consumer fora below were therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld. The learned counsel also stated that the filing of record relating to the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal or before the Hon''ble High Court is of no help to the petitioner, as it does not take away the right of the complainant to get his legitimate dues.

[8] We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

[9] The main plea taken by the petitioner concerns the point of limitation in filing the complaint. The State Commission has adequately dealt with this issue and observed that the complaint was not barred by limitation because it was a continuing cause of action. It is evident from the facts on record that the complainant did join the services of the petitioner and from his salary etc., the provident fund dues were deducted from time to time. It is true that alleging certain irregularities, the complainant was placed under suspension and there were inquiries against him. As per the version of the complainant, he was reverted from the post of Chief Accountant to the post of Assistant Accountant, but was not allowed to join his duties. The fact, however, remains that whatever amount was deducted as provident fund from the salary or subsistence allowance paid by the petitioner to the complainant, the complainant is required to be paid the said amount as per rules and policy on the subject alongwith other terminal benefits. The stand taken by the provident fund organisation (OP-3) in this regard is very material and crucial to the facts of the present case. The said organisation stated categorically that they sent a letter to the petitioner, asking for the service particulars of the complainant, but they failed to elicit any response from them. It is clear, therefore, that there is deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and their plea that the claim is barred by limitation is not valid on any ground.

[10] In so far as the proceedings before the industrial tribunal and the Hon''ble High Court are concerned, the orders passed by them were not produced before the State Commission and the District Forum. The complainant/respondent no. 1 has taken the plea that these documents should not be taken into consideration in the proceedings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. We do agree with the contention of the complainant that the documents which were not produced before the Consumer Fora below should not be taken into consideration in the present proceedings. It is observed, however, that as stated by the petitioner himself, as a result of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal and the Hon''ble High Court, the conclusion was that the complainant cannot be reinstated with back wages. It does not mean, however, that the complainant is debarred from getting his legitimate dues like provident fund and retirement benefits etc. The contention raised by the petitioner, therefore, about the proceedings before the Hon''ble Tribunal and the Hon''ble High Court does not support their case in any manner.

[11] In their concurrent findings, the consumer fora below have directed the petitioner/OP-1 to settle the terminal benefits including the PF of the complainant by submitting the requisite information to OP-3. The OP-3 was also directed to pay the provident fund amount after receiving the price from the OP-1. We do not find, by any stretch of imagination, any irregularity, illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the said order passed by the consumer fora below and hence the said orders are confirmed. The present revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.