Limitation law not for PF claims

Harassment due to delays in releasing an employee's claim for the provident fund (PF) is nothing unusual. There are also several instances when employers deduct the PF but fail to deposit it with the authorities. There is typical bureaucratic indifference to complaints made by aggrieved citizens. The law is well settled that non-payment of PF is a deficiency in service for which a consumer complaint is maintainable, as held by the Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner versus Shiv Kumar Joshi [III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC]. The question which now arose was whether the law of limitation would be applicable as the Consumer Protection Act requires a complaint to be filed within two years after cause of action has arisen. This issue has been decided by the National Commission in a recent judgment.

Nathilal Kushwaha, Kantilal Patel and Krishnakant Jaiswal were employees of Amar Auto Parts. After retirement, they approached the office of Regional Provident Fund Commission in 2004 for the benefits they were entitled to under the PF scheme. Under one pretext or the other, the amounts were not paid despite follow up. Exasperated, in 2009, they filed individual complaints before the Ahmedabad District Consumer Forum.

As the issue of non-payment was pending for over two years, they made an application to condone the delay of 4,895 days in filing the complaint. The Provident Fund Commissioner opposed the application. After hearing both the sides, the Forum condoned the delay and decided to proceed with the complaints.

The Provident Fund Commissioner challenged the order through revision petitions filed before the Gujarat State Commission, stalling the complaint from proceeding on merits. After considering the rival contentions, the State Commission held that delay had rightly been condoned as the employees had a right to claim their dues and retirement benefits.

The Provident Fund Commissioner then approached the National Commission by filing a revision petition objecting to the condonation of delay. In its judgment of May 9, 2018, delivered by the Bench of Justice D K Jain and M Shreesha, the National Commission observed that there would be a continuing cause of action in respect of non-payment of the amounts under the Provident Fund Scheme. So it concluded that there would be no question of the complaint being barred by limitation. In view of this, the National Commission held the Forum could not be faulted for allowing the delay condonation application.

While dismissing the revision petitions, the National Commission lamented that the Provident Fund Commissioner showed lack of concern about protecting the interest of the employees. It castigated the Provident Fund Commissioner for failing to proceed with the complaint on merits, and instead squandering public money on litigation in trivial matters and wasting precious judicial time.

Conclusion: It is sad that the authorities fail to do their job, and waste time, money, manpower and resources on futile litigation to harass the very persons whose interest they are expected to protect. 

The writer is a consumer activist