ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. MOHD UMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the appellant is respository of the Provident Fund of the employees of private organizations under Provident Fund Scheme. Vide impugned order dated 7.10.2001 passed by the District Forum it has been directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment the respondent-employee suffered by not receiving the amount of the provident fund for more than 2 years. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal by taking the resort to provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 in support of his contention that there was no delay in disbursing the amount and the appellant is not deficient in service and consequently is not liable to pay the awarded amount. The relevant Clause 10.19 is reproduced as under: "10.19 The Central Board of Trustees at its 100th Meeting have approved the following procedures with regard to the attestation of claim forms for settlement of accounts under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. (i) Where the claim is preferred by a member with attestation of the authorised official, other than his ex-employer within one year of the claim becoming due, irrespective of the amount involved, the claim should be settled by the Commission without getting the same verified/attested by the ex-employer. (ii) In case of those claims which are received one year after they become due and the claim applications, if not attested by the ex-employer, should be sent to him for verification only. "

(2.) The respondent No.1 was employed with respondent No.2 M/s. Friends and Company, as an Accountant w. e. f.24.7.1997. Respondent No.2 i. e. , the employer has been deducting contribution from the salary of the respondent No.1 right from the date of his joining, against P. F. No. DL-19390. The respondent No.1 could not continue in the job due to some domestic circumstances and resigned w. e. f.31.8.1998 and requested the respondent No.2 for payment of Employees' Provident Fund contribution deducted from his salary. Till 2001 i. e. , more than 2 years the respondent No.1 was not given the amount of his provident fund forcing him to approach the District Forum for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) The main contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent No.1 had applied for the withdrawal for the first time on 9.1.2001 and since the request of the respondent No.1 was made beyond the prescribed period of one year it was sent for verification to the ex-employer and within one month of the receipt of the information from the ex-employer of the respondent No.1 the amount was paid to the respondent No.1.