Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vs MOHD. UMAR

-THE appellant is respository of the Provident Fund of the employees of private organizations under Provident Fund Scheme. Vide impugned order dated 7.10.2001 passed by the District Forum it has been directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment the respondent-employee suffered by not receiving the amount of the provident fund for more than 2 years. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal by taking the resort to provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 in support of his contention that there was no delay in disbursing the amount and the appellant is not deficient in service and consequently is not liable to pay the awarded amount. THE relevant Clause 10.19 is reproduced as under: "10.19 THE Central Board of Trustees at its 100th Meeting have approved the following procedures with regard to the attestation of claim forms for settlement of accounts under the Employees'' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. (i) Where the claim is preferred by a member with attestation of the authorised official, other than his ex-employer within one year of the claim becoming due, irrespective of the amount involved, the claim should be settled by the Commission without getting the same verified/attested by the ex-employer. (ii) In case of those claims which are received one year after they become due and the claim applications, if not attested by the ex-employer, should be sent to him for verification only."

THE respondent No. 1 was employed with respondent No. 2 M/s. Friends and Company, as an Accountant w.e.f. 24.7.1997. Respondent No. 2 i.e., the employer has been deducting contribution from the salary of the respondent No. 1 right from the date of his joining, against P.F. No. DL-19390. THE respondent No. 1 could not continue in the job due to some domestic circumstances and resigned w.e.f. 31.8.1998 and requested the respondent No. 2 for payment of Employees'' Provident Fund contribution deducted from his salary. Till 2001 i.e., more than 2 years the respondent No. 1 was not given the amount of his provident fund forcing him to approach the District Forum for redressal of his grievance. The main contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent No. 1 had applied for the withdrawal for the first time on 9.1.2001 and since the request of the respondent No. 1 was made beyond the prescribed period of one year it was sent for verification to the ex-employer and within one month of the receipt of the information from the ex-employer of the respondent No. 1 the amount was paid to the respondent No. 1.

We find this contention difficult to ram down the throat for the simple reason that no employee will wait for more than 2 or three years for demanding the refund of the provident fund and the very fact that the respondent No. 1 applied for refund of the amount to his employer in the year 1998 and to say that the appellant received this request from the employer on 9.1.2001 is again difficult to accept. Furthermore, the appellant did not bother to see as to why the provident fund in the account of respondent No. 1 was lying unclaimed nor did it make any inquiry from the ex-employer of the respondent No. 1 as to why the request of the respondent was not forwarded for more than one year whereafter verification by the ex-employer became necessary. The perusal of the impugned order shows that it was on 17.10.2001 when argument were being addressed before the District Forum that the respondent made a statement that he has received the amount of provident fund along with interest but at the same time claimed amount of compensation for having undergone mental agony and harassment for not having received the amount of provident fund for three long years.

IN the face of these facts the appellant cannot be absolved from its liability on account of deficiency in service. The District Forum has already taken highly conservative view while awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- whereas depriving the poor employee of his own money for three long years caused immense suffering in terms of money as well as mental agony. We do not feel inclined to interfere with such an order and dismiss the appeal. Bank guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal dismissed.