LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-598

R K GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

Decided On July 31, 2012
R K GUPTA Appellant
V/S
NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition had been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 31.08.2007 passed by the Employees? Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' in short) reviewing its earlier order dated 15.02.2007 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner's erstwhile employer, respondent no.1 herein, under Section 7- I(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act of 1952' in short) against the order passed by respondent no.2 herein, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, under Section 7-A of the said Act had been dismissed and consequently the appeal stood allowed.

(2.) Facts in the background of which this petition came to be filed by the petitioner may be set out briefly. The petitioner was an employee of respondent no.1. He was suspended on 8 th April, 1983 on some charges and then dismissed from service from 11.2.85. The petitioner challenged his dismissal before this Court and the writ petition filed him (being C.W.P. No. 419/1985) was allowed vide order dated 20.02.1998 and the order of his dismissal was set aside with directions to the respondent no. 1 to pay all consequential benefits from the date of his suspension till the date of his superannuation, since by that time he had already reached the age of superannuation. The petitioner then in terms of Rule 13 of the NBCC CPF Rules, 1963 exercised his option in June, 1998 as to the mode and manner of payment of his provident fund contribution but subsequently he gave another option vide letter dated 07.07.1998 in which he had stated that his earlier option was provisional and he was opting for deductions from his salary dues to the full extent of his emoluments as admissible under CPF Rules. As per that option his subscription and employer's contribution were to be credited to his provident fund account which was to be opened by respondent no.1, since the earlier account was closed with his dismissal from service, and that money was to come to him through NBCC CPF Trust alongwith interest also as per the rates prevalent from time to time. The respondent no.1 however, sent him two cheques in September, 1998 one of which was for Rs.1,59,051/- on account of full and final payment of his salary dues and the other one was for Rs.79,370/- on account of employee's subscription and employer's contribution of provident fund. Those cheques were, however, not accepted by him and were returned as the payment of the provident fund amount was not routed through the NBCC CPF Trust and also because the provident fund dues were not calculated as per the option exercised by him vide his option letter dated 07.07.1998. While returning those cheques the petitioner had requested to settle his dues of salary and provident fund as per his option letter dated 07.07.1998.

(3.) When no response was received by him from respondent no. 1 he approached the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner(RPFC), respondent no. 2 herein. The RPFC after having received the petitioner's representation dated 30.09.1998, in which also he had pointed out some other violations also of the provisions of the Act of 1952 by respondent no. 1, issued certain directions on 12.10.1998 to the respondent no.1 for compliance including the one to open a new provident fund account in the name of the petitioner and to credit therein his subscription as per his option letter dated 07.07.1998 and employer's contribution also alongwith yearly interest within a week. Similar directions were repeated by RPFC again and again and the respondent no. 1 was asked to take necessary steps in respect of the case of the petitioner herein as per the provisions of the Act of 1952 but respondent no. 1 still did not comply with the directions of RPFC.