AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. The appeal is filed against the order dated 4. 5. 2005 in O. P. No. 15/2001 of the District Forum in allowing the complaint, wherein a direction was given to the opposite parties to refund the EPF amount along with interest as stated therein.
THE complainant has approached the District Forum by contending that he was the Secretary in the Primary Agricultural Rural Development Bank, Thiruvannamalai and he has retired from service on 30. 9. 1999 and even though he was a subscriber to the EPF, after his retirement the said amount was not paid to him. Under the said circumstances the complainant approached the District Forum seeking an appropriate relief. The appellants/opposite parties contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The District Forum by considering the materials available on record has allowed the complaint with the following directions: in the result, this complaint is partly allowed. Opposite parties are hereby directed to refund the EPF amount due to the complainant herein, i. e. a sum of Rs. 71,943, along with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. , from 1. 10. 1999, till the date of payment. Time for payment one month, from the date of this order. Failing which, the complainant herein is entitled to 12% interest on the said amount, from the date of default, till the date of realization. Complainant herein is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 500 towards costs of this petition.
THE present appeal is filed raising the same contentions urged before the District Forum. The District Forum has taken note of the resolution of the opposite party, wherein it has been decided to refund the EPF amount to the complainant, based on which the communication is sent, which is marked as Ex. A1. No other contra material is produced as to why the complainant is not entitled for the payment of EPF amount. That apart, the objection raised before the District Forum with regard to the jurisdiction aspect, the same was overruled by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, reported in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC)=x (1999) SLT 395=i (2000) CLT 343 (SC)=air 2000 SC 331. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the District Forum. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.