Ramanand Singh Son Of Sri Sachchidanand Singh v. The Union Of India through Secretary, Labour Employment, Government Of India

Patna High Court CWJC No.23029 of 2011 (14) dt.05-02-2013 2 A situation has been created, not because of the employee but because of difference and dispute as between the Bank and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner because of which the Provident Fund authorities seized the account as being maintained by the Board of Trustee of the provident fund in relation of employees of the Bank and appropriated the entire proceed therein. It is the prayer of the petitioner that the money is neither of the Bank nor the Board of Trustees nor of the Provident Fund Commissioner. Both the Bank or the Board of Trustees and the Provident Fund Commissioner are trustees for the money, which is the contribution of the employees and the contribution of the employer to the benefits of the employees and the accrued interest in favour of the employees. Thus, the petitioner prays that the Bank and the Provident Fund Commissioner are liable to pay the entire dues in relation to the petitioner and their like upon their superannuation. It is not a tax which can be appropriated by the Provident Fund Authorities much the prejudice of petitioners and their like. Without prejudice the dispute as between the Bank and the Provident Fund Commissioner in order to evolve satisfactory modality of payment to the retired employees, acceptable to all, this Court had made certain observations by order on 24.1.2013 Patna High Court CWJC No.23029 of 2011 (14) dt.05-02-2013 3 and adjourned the matter. It is relevant to note that pursuant to the suggestion made by this Court parties are agreeable with the modality for such payment without prejudice to their right in regard to the dispute inter se as between the Bank or the Board of Trustees and the Provident Fund Commissioner. Heard Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Y.V.Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the Bank and Mr. R.S.Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner and learned counsel for the Union of India and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. At the very outset it may be noted that this Court is neither resolving nor trying to adjudication upon the dispute as between the Provident Fund Commissioner or the Bank or the Board of Trustees of the Provident Fund Scheme flouted by the Bank. This Court is only laying down the modality for payment of money, which is due to the retiring employees. It cannot be disputed that the money in the account, which has been seized by the Provident Fund authorities and transferred to itself in various stages from the control of the Board of Trustees of the Provident Fund Scheme of the Bank or the Bank are all amounts which they were holding as Trustees for the employees . It is not the money Patna High Court CWJC No.23029 of 2011 (14) dt.05-02-2013 4 of the Bank or the Board of Trustees. Thus, when the Provident Fund Commissioner seized appropriated these amounts liability to refund, shifts from the Bank or the Board of Trustees to the Provident Fund authority, who so ever may be in control. Thus, directions have to be issued to the provident fund authority fixing the modality for refund. Again at the cost of repetition I may note that whatever mode is being fixed by the Court and whatever compliances are ordered by the Court by either of the parties will not in any way prejudice their rights. These directions are only being passed in the interest of justice to secure money due to the retiring employees, which should have been paid to them long back but for the dispute between the Bank or its Board of Trustees and provident Fund Authorities. I, therefore, issue following directions, which would be binding on all the parties i.e the petitioner and like employees, the Bank and/or its Board of Trustees for the Scheme, which they have intended to follow and the Provident Fund authorities. In terms of para 72 of the Employee Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the employees would have to make an application in Form 19 to the provident fund authority for payment of money lying to their credit. These forms are to be certified by the employer i.e. the Bank and/or the Board of Trustees of the Bank’s Patna High Court CWJC No.23029 of 2011 (14) dt.05-02-2013 5 Provident Fund scheme in the Statutory Form 19. There is a tabular statement requires to be filled up for the current financial year. Instead of this the Bank and/or Board of Trustees of the Bank’s Provident Fund Scheme would give detailed figures of the particular employee’s contribution, the total contribution of the employer i.e. Bank, the total accrued interest up to the date when the amount was seized by the Provident Fund authorities and it would be duly certified by the Bank and/or Board of Trustees, as the case may be. It shall not be open to the question or verification by the Provident Fund authorities. Upon this form being submitted by the retired employee duly certified, the Provident Fund Authorities would then include the accrued interest since the account was with them consequent to its seizer. This interest would now be added to the amount as certified by the Bank and it shall be the duty of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to ensure that the entire amount so calculated should be transferred to the account of the retired employees within fifteen days from the date of submission of Form by the employee duly filled up and certified by the authority. The Provident Fund authorities would be under obligation to give calculation of the said amount with all interest including entry with last accrued interest to the employee and a detailed statement thereof on Patna High Court CWJC No.23029 of 2011 (14) dt.05-02-2013 6 fortnightly basis would be submitted by the Regional Provident Fund authority to the Bank showing clearly the amount standing in the account with such accrued interest and the closing balance. Upon payment of the said amount to the retired employee, which payment has to be only through Bank account. The Provident Fund Commissioner and/or Bank or its Board of Trustees would be relieved of any liability with regard to the said amount in respect of the said retired employees. In addition to the form aforesaid, the employee would have to give an affidavit to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner along with Form clearly indicating that if at any time there is any dispute with regard to the payment or the amount he would co-operate in the matter. It is expected that neither the Bank nor the Board of Trustees nor the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner would create impediments in payment to the retired employees in any manner and they are expected to work and co-operate to ensure due payments to the employees without any further harassment or delay. In case of any confusion or difference between any of the parties, that would not authorize them to detain the payment. They would be authorized to approach this Court for any clarification Patna High Court CWJC No.23029 of 2011 (14) dt.05-02-2013 7 in that regard. At the cost of repetition this modality set up would apply to all retired employees of the Bank irrespective of the fact whether they have moved this Court or not and no objection shall be taken either by the Bank or Board of Trustees or Provident Fund Commissioner in this regard. Individual retired employees are not required to move this Court for individual orders. Needless to say that Bank and its Board of Trustees or the Provident Fund Commissioner would be under obligation to give the retired employees detailed calculation of deduction, contribution and interest so that the employees are able to verify the same before they accepted the payment in full and final settlement of their dues. There shall not be any delay in that regard. In view of the fact that the funds are with the Provident Fund Authorities, it is expected that the total time taken, from the time the retired employee applies to the Bank for refund to the time amounts are credited to his Bank account by the Provident Fund Authorities should not take more than 45 days. The responsibility whereof would be shared equally as between the Chairman/ Administrator of the Bank and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Patna High Court CWJC No.23029 of 2011 (14) dt.05-02-2013 8 It may be noted that all the parties are fully agreeable to the mode, manner and modality as stated above and the order has been passed in their presence. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) singh/-