WE THE PEOPLE
After depriving hundreds of weavers of new looms, Handloom Corporation has failed to remit their CP Fund of Rs 1.45 crores so far
Hence weavers seek concerned Minister’s intervention, demand overhauling and redressal of their grievances
By: Uzair Khan
Srinagar: As already stated, the Handloom Development Corporation had received Rs. 1.41 crore from the Central/State Governments up to 2002-03 for implementation of the project. Accordingly to the Project Managers of these weaving centers (November 2004-April 2005), no loom was actually installed or modernized in any of the weaving centers and none of the activities under the scheme had been carried out. Scrutiny of records has further revealed that the Company in July 2005 instead of spending the amount on implementation of the project, had diverted major portion of the funds towards payment of salary/wages to its staff. It has further been observed that the Company submitted utilization certificates to the Central Government showing full utilization of Rs. 85.88 lakh, without mentioning the diversion. It is startling to learn that the FA&CAO of the Company has confirmed the said facts and also stated that a negligible amount was spent on purchase of raw material, weaver wages and not provided technical guidance to weavers.
As per J&K Employee’s Provident Fund Act, 1961, every employer shall remit General Provident (GP)/Contributory Provident (CP) Fund collections recovered from the employees to the Provident Fund Commissioner within 15 days of the close of every month. In case of default, the PF Commissioner may recover damages not exceeding 25 per cent of the arrears amount in terms of the Section 16 of the Act, ibid.
The State Government’s Industries Department released budgetary support of Rs. 3.50 crore 2004-05: Rs. 1.34 crore; 2005-06: Rs. 80.50 lakh and 2006-07: Rs. 1.35 crore during 2004-07 to the Company for meeting expenditure towards salary of its employees. The sanctions governing the release of funds stipulated clearance of the employer’s matching share of the current CP/GP Fund liability as the first charge on the amount and utilization of the remaining funds for payment of salary of the Company staff. It has, however, been observed that in December 2006 to June 2007 despite receipt of several notices from the PF Commissioner, the Company, instead of first clearing the current liability of Rs. 1.08 crore as on March 2007 on account of Employer’s matching share of CP/GP Fund for the above period, deposited only Rs. 7.39 lakh during 2004-07 in respect deputationists/retired employees. The Company for disbursement of salaries to the staff utilized the remaining amount of Rs. 3.43 core. It has further been observed that out of employees’ share of Rs. 99.28 lakh deducted at source from the salary of the employees (2004-07), Rs. 6. 73 lakh only was remitted (2004-07) to the PF Commissioner. Consequently, the liability on account of CP/GP Fund increased from Rs. 1.45 crore (March 2004) to Rs. 3.39 crore as on March 2007.
It is worth mentioning that on account of non-deposit of CP Fund contribution, the PF Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 21.78 lakh during June 2004/March 2005 and February 2006 on six Intensive Handloom Development Project namely Kralpora (Budgam), Intensive Handloom Development Project, Leh, Intensive Handloom Development Project, Pulwama, Intensive Handloom Development Project, Pampore, Handloom Silk Weaving Factory, Rajbagh and Handloom Development Corporation, Wazir Bagh Srinagar Units of the Company for different periods ranging between June 2004 and February 2006, which had not been paid by the Company as in June 2007. It was also observed in June 2007 that though non-deposit of CP/GP Fund by the Company was in the knowledge of the Industries Department (Administrative Department), yet no action had been taken against the Company.
The Management is on record to have stated in June 2007 that the Company due to its financial constraints had no other option but to utilize the amount for disbursement of salaries to its employees. The reply is not tenable, as the Corporation should have sought more funds from the Government or made alternate arrangement to meet the expenditure.
Hence weavers seek concerned Minister’s intervention and demand overhauling of Handloom Development Corporation to make it vibrant to turn it responsive to their needs.
More 
