KALAPATTI SPINNING MILLS Vs. C RANGASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st opposite party in COP No. 209/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: He was an employee under the 1st opposite party and was under the cover of Provident Fund. The contributions made had been deposited in his account maintained by the 2nd opposite party. After his retirement on 13.11.1995 he wanted to get the retirement benefits. The 1st opposite party refused to furnish the particulars and even refused to attest Form 19 etc. The 2nd opposite party also did not disburse the money to him and this necessitated filing of the complaint.

(2.) THE 1st opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the complainant never approached the 1st opposite party with the relevant papers attached; that they never refused to put the signature in Form 19. The complainant did not hire any service from the 1st opposite party and there was no deficiency in service as alleged. The 1st opposite party was not a necessary party to the proceedings.

(3.) THE 2nd opposite party took the following stand: The 1st opposite party had not so far submitted the outgoing members return in Form 10 for November 1995 as required under Para 36(2)(b) of EPF Scheme, 1952 ; the return in Form 10 was a vital one to know the reason for leaving service and the date of leaving the service. The claim applications in Form 19 and Form 10 -C were not attested by the employer viz., the 1st opposite party as provided in Para 72(5)(b) read with para 69 (l)(e) of the EPF Scheme, 1952. While attesting the claim application, the 1st oppositeparty had to furnish the date and reason for leaving service. The application in Form 19 and Form 10 -C were returned to the 1st opposite party on 21.1.1999 and they were asked to re -submit the application with complete details vide the 2nd opposite party's office letter dated 19/20.12.2000. In spite of several reminders by the 2nd opposite party, for re -submission of claim application in respect of the complainant, till date the applications were not received. This was a clear lapse and failure on the part of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party was therefore not liable.