REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs Shiv Kumar Joshi

WHETHER the Commissioners constituted under the Employees Provident Fund Act, extend out services within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act to the subscribers? This is the solitary though somewhat significant question in this appeal.

THE facts are not in serious dispute and may be noticed with relative brevity. THE respondent was admittedly an employee of an Industrial Establishment from the 1st of May 1984 to the 14th of May, 1992 and it is admitted that he was a subscriber with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner during the said period. He applied for payment of the fund amount on the 15th of July, 1992 after two months of his resignation from the employment and despite repeated requests and demands the amount due in accordance with the rules was not released to him despite the mandate that the claims for final refund of the employees provident fund are to be settled within 20 days. Aggrieved by the delay and virtual denial, the respondent was compelled to file the complaint, before the District Forum on the 26th of August, 1992. Apart from the release of the provident fund money, damages to the tune of Rs. 65,000/- were claimed on account of negligence and deficiency in the services on the part of the appellant. In contesting the complaint the appellant Provident Fund Commissioner admitted the broad factual matrix of the respondent being a subscriber. The plea taken was that the respondent''s case was duly processed and subsequently the accumulations were remitted to him vide cheques dated 15th of September, 1992 and 21st of September, 1992. Whilst admitting that the claim forms of the respondent duly attested by the Executive Magistrate were received in the office of the appellant, the plea was raised that the said application was still forwarded to the employer for attestation and verification and the delay occurred due to the employers procrastination alone and all further liability was consequently denied. The very jurisdiction of the District Forum to take cognizance was also challenged.

Both the parties led evidence in support of their case which was primarily composed of unchallenged documents. The District Forum held on the issue of jurisdiction that the appellant-Commissioner came within the domain of service as defined under the Act, and further took the view that in such matters things could not be left at the mercy of the employer in view of the statutory mandate to settle the claim normally within 20 days. Consequently marginal relief was granted by way of interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed period of payment from the 5th of August, 1992 till 15th/21st September, 1992 being the dates of the issuance of cheques by the appellant. The respondent was also awarded his costs.

MR. Rajesh Bindal, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Commissioner being apparently bereft of any arguments on merits had primarily pressed his stand that the authorities under the Employees Provident Funds Act did not come within the domain of service under the Act. Relying on Sections 5, 6,14 and 14-B of the Act and the subsidiary provisions of Schedule (II) thereto, it was sought to be contended that the obligations mandated thereby were statutory in nature. The stand was that neither any services within the meaning of the Act were extended out by the appellant nor they were hired for consideration by the respondent. The primal reliance was placed on the brief observation of the Goa State Commission in First Appeal No. 43 of 1992, Shri Xamba N. Budkule, Panaji v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Panaji & Another, decided on the 14th September, 1992 to the effect that the subscriber did not come within the definition of a consumer. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Sandeep Vermani had placed firm reliance on the detailed judgments of the Delhi State Commission in I (1992) CPJ 441, M.K Sangal v. The Accountant General-I (Lekha) and I (1993) CPJ 232, Kamlesh Vohra v. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors; for contending that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners come squarely within the ambit of the consumer jurisdiction and further that the delay in settling the claim was contrary not only to the spirit of the statute but equally to the express instructions of the appellant itself.

HEREIN we are firmly inclined to agree with the consistent view of the Delhi State Commission in the aforementioned cases and consequently it is unnecessary to overly elaborate the matter since it is covered by persuasive precedents. It suffices to mention that a perusal of the statutory provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act and in particular those relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not in any way exclude the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from the wide-ranging ambit of the definition of service under the consumer jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the appellant''s insistence that because the function of the appellant was statutory in nature they could not come within the ambit of service has only to be noticed and rejected. We are unable to see how a duty enjoined by law to render services for consideration would in any way be a bar against the consumer jurisdiction if it otherwise comes plainly within the relevant definition under the Act. In fact a statutory mandate to render services for consideration may bring the matter more squarely and manifestly within the arena of consumer jurisdiction. Once it is held as above with regard to the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act and the Schedule (I) and (II) attached thereto, it remains to notice in this context instruction No. 91 duly issued and published by the authorities under the Act. This mandates the settlement of claims within 20 days in great detail in the terms following : - "Claims to be settled within 20 days- manner of reckoning 91. Every effort should be made to ensure that the claims for final refund of Employees'' Provident Fund dues and other benefits under Employees'' Family Pension/ Employees'' Deposit - Linked Insurance Schemes are settled within 20 days of their receipt. (i) Claims received in a folder comprising Employees'' Provident Fund Family Pension Fund/Insurance Fund claim applications should be paid out within 20 days of their receipt. The 20 days'' time should be reckoned as follows : -- (a) When the claim amount is to be remitted by money order the time should be assessed from the date of receipt of the claims in complete form or date of receipt of the particulars required to complete the claim in the Regional / Sub-Regional Office to the date of dispatch of Money Order. (b) Where the amount is to be remitted by cheque, the time would run from the date of receipt of the claim in complete form or date of receipt of the particulars required to complete the claim in the Regional/ Sub-Regional Office to the date of issue of cheque."

A bare reading of the above would manifest the underlying intention, of the framers of the aforesaid instructions with regard to the expeditious settlement of claims under the beneficial schemes provided by the Regional Provident Fund Act. Indeed this could not be disputed on behalf of the appellant nor the factual matrix that herein the respondent''s claim was not only tendered beyond 20 days but only after he had knocked at the door of the District Forum and apparently under pressure of the notice issued against the appellant therein for the trial. It now remains to refer to case'' M.K. Sangal v. The Accountant General-I (Lekha) (Supra). Therein an objection of somewhat identical nature was raised before the Delhi State Commission in the context of the General Provident Fund and the Accountant General of the State Government. Repelling the same it was held as follows : - "These savings for the Fund are deposited with the Accountant General instead of a banker. Similarly the Banks and Post Offices are also authorized to provide identical services to the citizens of this country by way of accepting deposits under the Provident Fund Schemes. If the matter is viewed from this angle the Accountant General for all intends and purposes functions as a banker by way of accepting the deposits from the employees of the Government under General Provident Funds Scheme. It need not be discussed that the Banks and the Post Offices earn higher interests on the deposits by further utilizing and investing these deposits. Similarly the Accountant General also earns higher interests than the one paid on the deposits to the employees. The functions of the Accountant General while taking the deposits of G.P.F. are thus identical to that of the bankers and we are, therefore, of the considered opinion that any deficiency in the service rendered to the employees in this respect is covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

In Kamlesh Vohra v. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (supra) the Delhi State Commission again took the same view in the particular context of a Provident Fund Scheme. It suffices to mention that we are inclined to agree with the consistent stand of the Delhi State Commission on this point.

IN all fairness, we must notice the learned Counsel for the appellant''s reliance on the Goa State Commission''s observations in Shri Xamba N. Budkule, Panaji v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Panaji & Another (Supra). However a perusal of the short order therein would show that the learned Counsel for the parties were somewhat remiss in not adequately can-vassing the matter before the Commission either on principle or precedent. It would seem that neither the wide-ranging terms of service were noticed nor the earlier decisions of the Delhi State Commission were cited before the bench. Consequently after merely quoting the definition of a consumer it has been merely observed as a dictum that the complainant -appellant did not come within the definition of a consumer. With the deepest deference we are unable to agree with the said view and must record a respectful dissent there from.

FOR the foregoing detailed reasons the answer to the question posed at the very outset has to be rendered in the affirmative. It up held that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners extend out services within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act to the subscribers for consideration. Once the aforesaid conclusion is arrived at the appeal must necessarily fail. It bears repetition that herein the respondent''s claim was not settled within the mandatory period of 20 days and what is more only after he was compelled to prefer the complaint in the consumer jurisdiction and the issuance of notice to the appellant. If he view of the District Forum is hence affirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.