BASUDEV DALAI vs Genelec Limited

THE complainant in this case has claimed compensation alleging deficiency in service by the opposite parties. THE complainant was serving. He was subsequently transferred to Hindco Lighting Industries Limited which was later re-named as Genelec limited (Opp. Party No. 1). It is alleged by the complainant that Provident Fund deduction was being effected from his salary every month but the same was retained with opposite party No. 2 instead of sending the same to the Provident Fund Commissioner. THE complainant resigned from service with effect from 4.6.91 by which date according to him Rs. 89,492/- was due on account of Provident Fund to be received by him from the opposite party. He was not paid his provident fund dues after his retirement for which he made several representations and visited the Calcutta office of the opposite parties on several occasions. Ultimately he received a letter dated 14.11.92 from the Company (Opp. Party No. 1) signed by the Head Personnel and Administration stating that the Company is undergoing financial crisis and serious efforts are being made for its revival. In the said letter it was also undertaken that as soon as the Company will be in a position to organise funds, steps will be taken to make payment of the dues of the complainant. Inspite of the aforesaid letter which has been annexed to the complaint petition as Annexure 7, no follow up action was taken for payment of the dues of complainant. Hence the complainant filed this case before the Commission on 27.2.93. On being noticed, the Company (Opp. Party No. 1) filed a show cause denying its liability. In the said show-cause, the maintainability of the case as well as jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the case has been challenged on various grounds. It has, however, been said that the complainant would get his entitlement as soon as the financial problem which the Company is facing is sorted out. After the issuance of notice fixing the date of hearing which was served on the Company there has been no appearance on their behalf. Though S.R. from Opp. Party No. 3 has not been received back, the notice having been sent by registered post, the presumption is that it has reached him. In the circumstances we proceed to decide the case ex parte.

THOUGH the opposite parties took objection as to the maintainability of the case and also took objection as to the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case but none appears on their behalf to press those points. We therefore proceed to decide as to whether non-payment of Provident Fund dues by the employer is a deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. We express no opinion on other point relating to the territorial jurisdiction, as the same was not pressed. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of this case on the basis that it is maintainable.'' In the show cause filed by the opposite party No. 1 the claim of the complainant that Rs. 89,492 /- was due to be paid to him on account of Provident Fund dues has not been disputed. We, therefore, hold that the Provident Fund dues was payable to the complainant as on 4.6.91 as per letter dated 14.11.92 (Annexure-7) acknowledging the liability of the Company to pay the Provident Fund dues of the complainant which was outstanding. During the course of hearing it was admitted by the complainant that a sum of Rs. 1,12,942.12 p. has been paid to him on 15.7.94 by the opposite party by cheque. His contention is that the outstanding dues on account of Provident Fund would carry interest from 4.6.91 to 15.7.94 as the money was held by the Company and the complainant was deprived of utilising the same. Though the complainant claimed compound interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum, in our opinion he would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the opposite party who illegally withheld the money from 4.6.91 to 15.7.91. Calculating the interest at 12 percent per annum, the total amount including the interest comes to Rs. 1,23,050/-. The complainant was paid Rs. 1,12,942.12 p. on 15.7.94 as admitted by him. He therefore, claims Rs. 10,108/-. Besides that there has been inordi nate delay in making the payment for which the complainant had gone to the office of opposite party No. 2 several times as alleged by him. He had also faced a proceeding before the Commission to get his dues. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, we award a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation in addition to Rs. 10,108/- to which he was entitled to as aforesaid. We, therefore, order that the opposite party No. 1 Company and opposite party No. 2 who are jointly liable to pay up this amount should make payment of the same within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount awarded would carry interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of default till payment. Complaint allowed.