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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more