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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more