BIHAR STATE FOOD CORPORATION vs FOOD SUPPLY AND COMMERCE DEPTT.

O.P. is the appellant which has preferred the appeal against the order dated 6.8.2003 passed by District Forum, Patna in Case No. 204/2000 whereby and whereunder the O.P. No. 1 (Corporation) has been directed to make payment to the complainant of the share amount of the employer''s contribution to E.P.E. from the date of deputation, i.e., 6.8.1977 till the date of his retirement, i.e., 30.4.1998 with interest as applicable. The District Forum also awarded a cost of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant was appointed as laboratory attendant in the department of Food, Supply and Commerce, Government of Bihar (hereinafter referred to department) on 1.10.1958 and was confirmed on this post since 20.4.1972. He was posted in the office of the District Manager-O.P. No. 4 as Godown Operator since 6.8.1977 to the date of retirement, i.e., 30.4.1998. He wrote several letters to the Department to recall back his services but without success. Corporation informed the Department that his services have been absorbed but it continued to deduct his contribution to the G.P.F. and Group Bima Premium and remitted to the department. THE complainant filed a writ petition before the Hon''ble High Court seeking direction to the Department to recall back his services which was disposed of with a direction to pursue his claim against the corporation where he had been working so long and at the same time it was open for the department to recall his services in accordance with the rules but the department never recalled the services of the complainant and the Corporation continued to remit the contribution of the complainant deducted from his salary to the department. It is the case of the complainant that he was absorbed in the services of the Corporation where he worked till the date of his retirement. THErefore, the Corporation was liable for its contribution to E.P.F. THE Department also directed the Corporation to make payment of the Employer''s contribution and gratuity to the complainant for this period but the Corporation did not comply with the order of the department. THE Assistant Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund has also passed the order in favour of the complainant against which the Corporation filed an appeal before the Commissioner. In its rejoinder to the District Forum the Corporation stated that the complainant worked in the Corporation on deputation for the period from 6.8.1977 to the date of retirement, i.e., 30.4.1998 and in the meantime his services could not be absorbed. The Corporation continued to remit his contribution deducted from his salary to the Department for crediting to his G.P.F. account. The complainant has withdrawn his G.P.F. amount after his retirement. Thus, he availed of the benefit of G.P.F. amount and Group Insurance as per provisions of the Bihar Service Code. Therefore, the claim of the complainant has no merit. The department has filed rejoinder and submitted that the employees of the Department who were posted in the godowns were transferred to the Corporation as in the case of the complainant and he was adjusted there permanently and retired there as the staff of the Corporation for all purposes including the E.P.F. as per rule of the Corporation. The complainant is not entitled to any benefit of the Government servant for the period he worked in the Corporation.

The District Forum after hearing the parties and on the admitted fact of the pleading and written statement held that complainant''s services were placed on deputation with the Corporation since 5.8.1977 and he retired from there on 30.4.1998 as Godown Operator. This fact is not in dispute that complainant withdrew the G.P.F. and insurance amount after retirement from the Government. The main dispute is that the Corporation is not paying him any amount contributed towards E.P.F. amount on the ground that this amount was transferred to the parent department of the complainant from where he withdrew the G.P.F. and insurance amount. The Hon''ble High Court has also directed that complainant may pursue his claim before the Corporation where he was working so long unless the State Government withdraws his services. It is admitted case that Government has not withdrawn his services and he retired from the Corporation. It is also admitted fact that the Department has supported the case of the complainant and after considering all the facts the District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Corporation. Therefore, the Corporation (O.P. No. 1) was to pay the complainant the share amount of the employer''s contribution to E.P.F. and not the department.

WE have heard both the parties and perused the reply filed on their behalf. WE are also of the view that Corporation is entitled to pay to the complainant the share amount of the employer''s contribution to E.P.F. from the date of deputation as 6.8.1977 to the date of retirement, i.e., 30.4.1998. The District Forum has rightly directed the Corporation to pay this amount for this period with interest. This part of the order does not require our interference. However, we are of the view that award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation is not admissible in the present case because the complainant is already entitled for the interest of this period till the date of payment. Hence the award of compensation will amount to double punishment. However, the litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- is confirmed. In the fact and circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part. The Corporation is directed to make payment to the complainant the share amount of the employer''s contribution to E.P.F. from 6.8.1977 to 30.4.1998 with interest till the date of payment as admissible under the rule. The Corporation shall also pay quantified cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant. The award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is set aside. The Corporation is directed to abide by this direction within three months from the date of this order. However, there shall be no further cost of litigation at the appellate stage. Appeal partly allowed.