CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Vs. R C BHARADWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 Sec.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.