The court emphasized the importance of following the rules of the Provident Fund and rejected the Corporation's attempts to deviate from the prescribed procedures.

JUDGMENT

Rankin, C.J. - In this case the plaintiff Asoke Kumar De sues the Corporation of Calcutta to recover a sum of money which is under Rs. 1,000. His case is that his father Brojo Lal De was an employee of the defendant Corporation, that he was a contributor to the Provident Fund managed by that Corporation and that he died on 27th November 1920, leaving the plaintiff his only son and heir. It appears that besides the plaintiff there were three unmarried daughters and the plaintiff's mother predeceased his father. At the time of the father's death his brother Kunja Lal De, was, according to the defendants, a person, in whose care the plaintiff and the unmarried sisters were living. In that state of things what happened was this : the plaintiff's uncle Kunja Lal De applied to the Corporation for payment of the sum of money standing in the plaintiff's father's credit in the account of the Provident Fund of the Corporation and they acting under Rule 19 of their rules paid that sum of money to Kunja Lal De upon taking an Indemnity Bond from him with security. The plaintiff brings his suit in 1926 having attained majority and he requires the Corporation to pay to him over again the sum of money which was standing to the credit of his father's account. He says that by the payment made to Kunja Lal De, the Corporation has got no discharge against him. The defendants by their written statement set up the fact that at the time they paid to Kunja Lal De he produced a certificate from an Hodorary Magistrate saying that Kunja Lal was the plaintiff's guardian. They say that on the strength of this certificate and on the fact that the mother was dead, they in good faith paid the money to Kunja Lal and they are protected by the provisions of the Provident Funds Act and the Corporation's Provident Fund Rules.

2. There is no dispute about the amount of the money. As there was a small amount of wages due to the plaintiff's father and a small amount contributed by him for the purchase of war bonds on the one hand, and as on the other it appears that the plaintiff's father had taken an advance from the Provident Fund, these matters had to be adjusted. But there is no dispute as to the amount that was due to the proper representative of the plaintiff's father or that it may be regarded as a case of compulsory deposit within the meaning of the Provident Insurance Societies Act, 1912 and the argument advanced before us on behalf of the Corporation proceeds on that assumption. At the hearing of the suit Mr. S.N. Banerjee for the Corporation raised two issues. The first is whether the suit was barred by limitation. That appears to have reference to the special provisions of Section 538, Calcutta Municipal Act. It says certain suits should be commenced within four months after the accrual of the cause of action. The learned Judge has rightly refused to entertain that argument because that section applies to suits against the Corporation in respect of an act purporting to be done under the Calcutta Municipal Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder. This is not a suit against the Corporation for any act which they justify or can justify under the powers conferred by the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923.

3. This is not a suit for damages for having paid money to Kunja Lal. It is a suit again3t the Corporation asking them to pay a sum of money which the plaintiff says they owe to him. Issue 2 refers to Section 3, Provident Funds Act (9 of 1897), and that is the matter which has been chiefly in debate before us. If one looks at the provision made by Section 3 of that Act with regard to small sums of money, meaning thereby sums which do not exceed Rs. 2,000 standing to the credit of a depositor at the time of his death, one finds that it says that the officer or person whose duty it is to make payment of such sum may pay it to any person entitled to receive it according to the rules of the Fund. There is a little complication introduced in order to pr