AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Provident Fund Organisation”), Opposite Party challenging the Order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 471 of 2013. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dated 04.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 325/2009 whereby, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to pay monthly pension of ₹448/- w.e.f. 01.07.2008 with arrears alongwith interest @6% p.a. from 01.07.2008 till the date of payment together with cost of ₹1500/-.
The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had joined as a worker at Rajan Cashew Company in the year 1996. Her PF A/c No. was KR/12285C/466. After rendering service for about 10 years, she left the service in 2008. The Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation sanctioned her monthly pension of ₹46/-. It is the case of the Complainant that like other co-worker, who are getting monthly pension of ₹635/-, although she is also eligible for monthly pension of ₹635/- yet the Opposite Party Organisation has wrongly sanctioned her monthly pension of ₹874/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation, a Complaint was filed before the District Forum.
Upon notice, by filing its Written Version, the Provident Fund Organisation contested the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant had non-contributory period of 2829 days and therefore, her pensionable service was of 2 years 6 months 15 days, which was rounded off to 3 years. These non-contributory periods were not counted for pension benefits. As per EPF Scheme, 1995, her monthly pension was calculated to be ₹46/- per month which is being released every month. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and it was prayed that Complaint be dismissed.
On analysis of the evidence adduced by the Parties before it, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint by observing as under:-
“….In this case there is no dispute that the complaint entered into PF service in 11/3/1998 and left service on 30/6/2008. The dispute is with regard to pensionable service and pensionable salary.
According to the complainant, the pensionable service is 10 years, 3 months and 19 days which is rounded to 10 years. Opposite party 1 contended that the complainant has only 2 years 6 months and 15 days pensionable service. The Point to be determined is what is the pensionable service of the complainant Ext.D1 and D4 show that the complainant worked in all the 10 years of her service and paid contribution throughout her service. According to opposite party 1 the complainant had non-working and non-contributory period of 2829 days. Eligible and permitted leave, holidays, break of service due to the reason beyond the control of employee are also added to the non-working and non-contributory period. As a cashew industry is seasonal industry, there will be seasonal breaks in employment. The employee is not responsible for this break. Service is to be calculated in the unit of years and not in the unit of days or months. Determination of pensionable service also indended to calculate in the unit of years. As a welfare legislation, the provisions should be interpreted in favour of the employee. The interpretation of the opposite party regarding break is incorrect an illegal. More over PW2 the factory manager admitted that the complainant has 10 years pensionable service and there was no break in service. So the pensionable service of the complainant in 10 years.
The next point to be decided is what is pensionable salary of the complainant. For determining the wages, of the complainant Ext.P6 is not for the complainant. But at the witness examination time the said document is marked as Ext.P6 without any objective form the side of opposite parties. More over the register number of the complainant noted in Ext.P1 to P6 is 304. So we are of the view that Ext.P6 belongs to the complainant. As per para 11(2) of EPS 95, pensionable salary is wages per day multiplied by thirty. Hence pensionable salary of the complainant is 104.53×30=3135.90
On considering the entire evidence we are of the view that the act of the opposite party No.1 in calculating pension of the complainant is wrong. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. The complainant has no case against the second opposite party that they committed any deficiency in service in payment of her PF contribution.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party 1 is directed to pay monthly pension of ₹448 from 1.7.2008. 1st opposite party is also directed to pay the arrears amount along with 6 % from 1.7.2008 till the date of payment. The opposite party 1 is further directed to pay cost ₹1500/-. ..”
Aggrieved with the Order passed by the District Forum, the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation preferred Appeal before the State Commission, which affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal in following terms:-
“…The facts alleged are not very much in dispute though there is variation regarding the date of entry into service etc. In this regard, the District Consumer Forum accepted the contentions of the first appellant based on records. The Consumer Forum did not accept the contention of the appellant that after deducting the break in service the complainant had contributory service oftwo years six months and fifteen days only and pension is to be calculated accordingly. Even paragraph 9 of the employees’ pension scheme, 1995 does not justify calculation of eligible service in terms of days as done by the appellant for the total actual service will have to be rounded off to the nearest year. It is made clear that fraction of service of six months or more shall be treated as one year and service less than six months shall be ignored but not in the case of service in seasonal establishments. The fact that works in a cashew factory is a seasonal one cannot be disputed. The appellant relies on Ext. D4 to contend that there was break in service for the complainant. A perusal of Ext.D4 shows that in 1998 the complaint has worked for 90 days, but the last column apparently added later makes no all days when there was work. Ext.D4 itself supports an inference that yearly service is reckoned. The monthly break up of working days is not furnished either by the second opposite party or insisted upon by the appellant. Then there is no justification in reducing the period from the date of entry into service to date of retirement by saying that there was break in service which apparently arose due to the nature of the work being a seasonal one. If that be so there is no merit in the only contention urged by the appellant. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”
Being aggrieved, challenging the Impugned Orders passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation has filed the present Revision Petitions before this Commission.
Mr. Puneet Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation, submitted that the State Commission had failed to appreciate that the pension of the Complainant had been calculated/fixed after deducting the non-contributory period from the total service of the Complainant as per EPF Scheme, 1995. The Order passed by the State Commission is bad in law and not sustainable in law. It was prayed that the Order passed by the Fora below be set aside and the Complaint be dismissed.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent herein, supported the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission as according to him the State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order which is based on a correct and rightful appreciation of evidence and material available on record and does not call for any interference
We have heard Mr. Puneet Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party/Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation and Mr. Murali Madanthacodu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainants/Respondent.
From the perusal of the material available on record and having given thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission vide its well-reasoned Order dated 29.05.2015 has rightly affirmed the findings recorded by the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Provident Fund Organisation in calculating the pension of the Complainant. While passing the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2015, the State Commission had considered all the material evidence on record and we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission. Further, there is no misreading of any evidence material on record and all the material in evidence which was placed before the State Commission has been considered. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [supra] is reproduced as under:-
“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”
Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ (supra), we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Order passed by the State Commission. Consequently, the present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.