EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION Vs. NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 10. 1. 2006 passed by the learned Divisional Forum, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forum) has been taken in appeal by the appellant. There is a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal. Application has been made for the condonation of delay on the sole ground that delay was not intentional but caused on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureautic methodology imbued with note-making, file pushing and passing on the buck ethos. At the outset, Mr. Karan Veer Singh Advocate for the non-applicant/respondent has submitted that a large number of depositors who had been working in factories and other establishments and business to which, the Jandk Employees Provident Fund Act, 1961 applies or is applied under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of Section 1 or Section 4 thereof including the employees of the respondent's Department (JDA) had become depositors under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1961 and like the respondent herein some of them also have been denied the incomes accrued by way of interest on their hard earned deposits. He is projecting that such lawful unpaid dues run into crores of rupees. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Hence, application is accepted and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Brief facts of the case are that respondent who is a Khilafwarzi Offier in Jandk Development Authority before October 1996; along with other employees of that Department who were holding their respective posts which were non-pensionable and under law were governed by provisions of the Jandk Employees Provident Act of 1961 and the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the scheme ). In the month of October 1996, the service of the employees of Jammu Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as JDA) were made pensionable and thereafter they ceased to be governed by the scheme. Respondent had been allotted C. P. Fund Account No. : JK/j/257/135 and till October 1996; he had contributed his share of the contributions to the tune of Rs. 29,823 whereas, employer (State through JDA) had contributed their share to the extent of Rs. 26,845. The case of the respondent is that the appellant transferred the C. P. Fund Accounts of only those employees who had access with the latter and that respondent's C. P. Fund Account was not transferred despite the fact that he had made many requests at different times but they had fallen flat into the deaf ears. Finally, on 13. 6. 2005, the appellant transferred his amount of the C. P. fund account number which had a credit of accumulated amount of Rs. 56,665 which was the same as in the month of October 1996. According to him, he has suffered a loss of Rs. 35,000 because that would have been his income by way of earnings of interest on Rs. 56,665 from October 1996 to 13. 6. 2005. The Forum had directed the appellant to calculate the interest on the amount of Rs. 56,665 w. e. f. October 1996 to June 2005 and pay the same in the manner in which payments have been made to other similarly situated employees.

(2.) IN its objections to the complaint; the appellant herein had pleaded before the Forum that respondent had failed to submit a duly filled form in the office of the appellant for the transfer of his Contributory Provident Fund account into GPF account and at such an indolent conduct of the respondent, the appellant had to act suo motu and accordingly on 8. 6. 2005, an amount of Rs. 56,665 was transferred under refund No. 43-737. It was emphatically pleaded that after the issuance of SRO 23 dated 1. 2. 2005; the respondent herein is not entitled to the payment of any interest beyond three years from the date of ceasing of the subscription.

(3.) HEARD the arguments.