CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES vs R.C. BHARADWAJ

THE appellant is Central Provident Fund Commissioner and has statutory obligation in protecting the interests of the workers and employees and take punitive action against the employers who do not fulfil their obligation of refunding the accumulated provident fund of their employees on their retirement. For indifferent, callous and cavalier attitude firstly of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and then of the appellant as the respondent who retired as typewriter mechanic has suffered so much that he is on the brink of complete ruination as due to penury caused by the appellant-respondent was not able to marry off his daughters and lost his only son.

VIDE impugned order dated 28.1.2003 the appellant was held to be jointly and severally liable along with employer of the respondent and was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 2,08,901.32 or such other higher amount accumulated towards the provident fund contributed by the respondent along with interest @ 9% till the date of payment. Instead of fulfilling its statutory obligation to refund provident fund to the respondent appellant has added insult to the injury and salt to the wound by preferring this appeal. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are like this. The appellant was employed as typewriter mechanic with respondent No. 3-M/s. Remington Rand of India Limited and retired on 12.2.1998. Admittedly under the provisions of Section 17 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act the employers and employees are given option to float trust for the purpose of accumulation of provident fund of their employees. Such a trust was constituted under the name of respondent No. 2. On his retirement the respondent No. 1 was entitled to get the accumulated provident fund amounting to Rs. 2,08,901.32 p. due to him. He firstly wrote to respondent No. 2 on 18.12.1997 and also to respondent No. 3 for refund of the said amount but having no response he sent another communication on 3.2.1998 followed by series of reminders. Respondent made complaint to the appellant in this regard and on 18.2.1999 he was informed by the appellant that the concerned authorities have been advised for appropriate action.

As ill-luck would have it respondent No. 2 Trust went into liquidation and was taken over by the appellant. In spite of fulfilling the requirement of furnishing the receipt duly authenticated and forwarded by the banker of the respondent to the respondent No. 2 Provident Fund institution on 21.6.1999 the respondent continued to receive one communication after another from the various authorities including the appellant. Having exasperated his patience he sent legal notice to the appellant and the concerned respondents on 17.1.2000 but to no avail. He was forced to approach the District Forum by filing the complaint. After having fought for his rightful and legitimate claim for four years obtained the impugned order.

APPELLANT has assailed the impugned order on following grounds: (1) That the District Forum lacked the territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as that the respondent has furnished his address as at Calcutta and, therefore, Calcutta Forum has the territorial jurisdiction. (2) That the respondent has not yet furnished the form for withdrawal and in its absence, appellant is not obliged to refund the accumulated provident fund. (3) That the appellant cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service as it took all the necessary steps in taking over the trust as the trust ultimately went into liquidation and was taken over by the appellant and there was no record of details of the provident fund due to the respondent available with the appellant. The statutory functions of the appellant are to protect the interest of the employees vis-a-vis unscrupulous employers but the appellant is trying to derive sadistic pleasure in the miseries of the respondent as the respondent has suffered so heavily in terms of non-refund of money bulk of which was his own money that he could not keep his soul and body together and failed to marry off his daughter and lost his only son and also on account of mental tension and agony as a person after retirement only looks upon the provident fund which he deposited for discharging his financial, social and family obligations say performing the marriage of his children and last but not the least for his survival. If this is the conduct of the appellant it is better to close down such an institution.

IN spite of the fact that the respondent had been all along working in Delhi the objection raised by the Counsel for the appellant that the address of the respondent was that of Calcutta and, therefore, the District Forum of Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction is not only mischievous but highly misconceived. It is the place of working of the employee which determines territorial jurisdiction and not the permanent home address furnished by the employee which may be a different address. How could the appellant be so unmindful of the fact that the respondent had along been working in Delhi. Callous and cavalier attitude of the appellant is further demonstrated from the fact that the respondent after sending reminders after reminders and also approaching respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was slapped with a letter by the appellant way back on 18.2.1999 that is almost after about 2 years that the appellant has advised respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for appropriate action. The things did not stop here. After taking over the respondent No. 2 trust, appellant did not bother to remit the provident fund amount to the respondent and expected the respondent to despatch a request for withdrawal. Letter of request to the appellant to refund the amount were thrown in the waste paper basket. The contention of the Counsel for that appellant that the respondent be asked to submit the form again is also not acceptable as once having applied for refund the respondent was not supposed or expected to apply again for refund of his money. The appellant should have refunded the money on its own immediately after he applied for refund of his money and respondent No. 2 trust was taken over. This plea is nothing but inhuman and detestable. Unfortunate respondent was forced to avail the services of a Lawyer to serve the appellant with a legal notice. Still the appellant did not did not move. All these fell on deaf ears. The appellant-institution has been created to protect the interest of the poor employees. But it was completely oblivious and unconcerned and unmindful of its statutory obligations. No leniency can be shown to such an appellant. We do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with exemplary penalty of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be payable to the respondent as compensation for mental agony and suffering and harassment besides the amount awarded by the District Forum which is lying with the appellant now. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- will be paid by the appellant immediately. At least after taking over the Trust it was the bounden duty of the appellant to refund the amount without any delay of even one day. This Commission recommends to the Central Government i.e., concerned Ministry to take punitive action against such officers who in the instant case were responsible after conducting inquiry into the delay in not refunding the amount and intimate the action taken.

COPY of this order be sent to the Secretary of the concerned Central Ministry.

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.