Skip to main content

PF denial costs bank Rs 3 lakh

The state consumer commission recently ordered the Bank of Baroda to pay compensation of Rs 3 lakh to a former employee for refusing to pay its contribution towards his provident fund. The commission also directed the bank to pay P Unnikrishnan Rs 1.33 lakh of the provident fund amount due to him.

Unnikrishnan filed the appeal in the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2005 after a district forum, while directing the bank to pay interest on the provident fund, rejected his plea with respect to the contribution of the bank towards the provident fund.

In his appeal, the complainant said that he was an employee of the bank and his services were terminated. His provident fund as far as his contribution was concerned was given by the bank, but it was delayed. The officials refused to disburse the contribution of the bank towards his provident fund.

Unnikrishnan filed a complaint for interest on the amount which was given late by the bank. He also sought the contribution of the bank towards the provident fund.

The bank cited the forfeiture clause covered by the Bank of Baroda Provident Fund Rules that says an employee's contribution can be forfeited if it is established that the employee committed financial misconduct and caused large financial losses.

Unnikrishnan's lawyer pointed out that the final order of removal passed by the assistant general manager, disciplinary authority, was to the effect that his removal should not be a disqualification for future employment. The lawyer said there was no observation about financial loss.

"We find that forfeiture clause in the Bank of Baroda Provident Fund Rules cannot be invoked in the present case, which was wrongly invoked by the district forum," the commission said.

It held that Unnikrishnan was entitled to the contribution and the interest amount.

 Article referred: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/PF-denial-costs-bank-Rs-3-lakh/articleshow/35032231.cms

 Comment:

This a perfect example of a case in favour of taking utmost care while dealing in any legal matters. In this case from the final order of the AGM, it would appear that the Bank is sympathetic to the problem of the disqualified employee and does not really appear to be blaming him for the loss. Under the circumstances, the stand taken by the State Commission is absolutely correct and if the Bank intended to codemn the employee, then it was botched up.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more