AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 31.03.2005, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission"), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein has been dismissed and the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") has been upheld.
We have heard Ms. Megha A., learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Nabeesa Beevi, Respondent No. 1, who has appeared in person and perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that as the Complainant/ Respondent herein had worked in a seasonal factory of cashew nut and had not worked for the entire year, the period during which she had not worked has to be excluded, while computing the pension as the Respondent No. 2, herein had not made the contribution for the pension during which the factory had not worked. She further submitted that the net service of the Complainant/ Respondent No. 1 was only 6 years and 16 days, if the period during which the cashew factory did not operate/ break in service taken by the Complainant/Respondent is taken into consideration.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We find it difficult to accept the submission made by her. It is not in dispute that the Complainant/ Respondent No. 1 was employed/ working in a cashew factory run by the Respondent No. 2 herein. It is the common knowledge that the cashew factory does not operate for the full year and the employees or the workman are required to work during which the work in the cashew factory takes place. There shall be certainly a break in the working in the cashew factory. The employees/ workman may not be paid by the employer for the period during which there was no working in the cashew factory, but it does not mean that for calculating the amount of gratuity or pension in cases of seasonal workers the period during which they had actually worked only shall be taken into consideration. The entire year has to be taken as a unit of experience/ working and if that is taken into consideration the period during which the Complainant worked i.e. from 01.04.1976 to 10.06.2005, has to be taken into consideration, which has been done by the State Commission.
We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the State Commission requiring interference in exercise of our Revisional Jurisdiction. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.
We appreciate the forceful submissions made by Ms. Megha A., learned Counsel for the Petitioner.