Jayanti Devi & 3 Ors vs Rameshwar Nath Mishra

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent  as detailed above, under section 21( b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 05.11.2018  of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 421 of 2018 in which order dated 05.02.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 894 of 2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for :

(i) Setting aside the order dated 05.11.2018 of the State Commission

(ii) Direct the Respondent / OP to pay the total P.F. with interest of the workman

(iii)  To pay compensation / cost of Rs.50,00,000/-

While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Appellants and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent in the said FA No. 421 of 2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioners were Complainants and Respondents was Opposite Party before the District Forum in CC No. 894 of 2012.  Notice was issued to the Respondent on 23.01.2020.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 03.12.2020 and  09.01.2023 respectively.

Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Late Tribhuwan Pandey had served under OP in Shri Gandhi Ashram.  He was dismissed from the service against which, case is pending before Labour Court, Lucknow.  According to the Complainants, despite asking for the Provident Fund amount many times from the OP, the amount was not paid.  However, Tribhuwan Pandey died with serious disease ( Petitioner / Complainant No.1 is the wife of Tribhuwan Pandey and Petitioner No.2 to 4 / Complainant Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of Tribhuwan Pandey) The OP sent a letter dated 16.09.2011 to the Complainant no.1, wife of deceased vide which OP demanded Succession Certificate as the amount in the PF was more than Rs.5000/-.  Vide letter dated 26.09.2012, complainants sent a letter to the OP demanding clear amount of the PF amount so that Succession Certificate could be made after depositing Court Fee but OP did not disclose the amount nor made the payment.  Being aggrieved by the said act of the OP, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum which was dismissed.  Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum,  the Complainants / Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed. Hence the Complainants are before this Commission now in the present Revision Petition.  (Initially Complainants filed the CC No. 894 of 2012 before the District Forum - I for direction to the OP to disclose as to how much amount of fund and other dues are deposited and also direction to the OP for paying fund with interest and Rs.1,00,000/- compensation.  The District Forum vide order dated 11.03.2014 dismissed the said CC.  Being aggrieved of the said order of the District Forum,  Complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission vide order dated 28.09.2017 remanded the  matter back to the District Forum for fresh disposal.)

Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 05.11.2018 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on the grounds that State Commission has not seen the Bylaws of Gandhi Ashram and that State Commission did not did not see the annexures which has been filed.

Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

5.1.  Counsel for the Petitioners argued that during the pendency of the complaint case before the District Forum, the respondent has paid Rs.2,76,635/- only but the total PF amount has not  been paid.  Counsel argued that Fora below have not passed any order against the respondent to pay the total PF amount and also did not summon the salary register, salary voucher and PF depositing register.  The respondent even did not comply the order / judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed against them.

5.2 Counsel for the Respondent argued that Respondent paid total payable PF amount of Rs.2,76,635/-, Rs.41,614 and  Rs.9635/-.  It is further argued that concurrent findings have been given by District Forum and State Commission.

In this case, Complainants ( Petitioners herein ) approached the District Forum with CC No. 894 of 2012, praying for directions to OP to (a) state clearly as to how much PF and other dues are deposited by late Sh. Tribhuwan Pandey, (b) to pay total deposited PF with interest to the heirs of late Sh. Tribhuwan Pandey and (c) to pay Rs.1.00 lakh compensation for  harassment to the heirs of late Sh. Tribhuwan Pandey. District Forum after considering the detailed response of OP and observing that ( a ) information of fund particulars have been given by OP, ( b) and Rs.2,76,635.40 has been paid, dismissed the complaint.  State Commission in its order, taking note of the observations of District Forum that Complainants having received the relief no. 1 and 2, have no right to get compensation relief no. 3.  The State Commission, after taking note of the awards of Labour Court and orders of Hon’ble High Court, dismissed the appeal.  Hence, in this case, there are concurrent findings of Fora below that Complainants / Petitioners have got the requisite reliefs. As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577], the Hon’ble Supreme Court  held 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.”

While concluding the hearing and reserving the judgment on 10.07.2023, Respondent was directed to file an affidavit giving item-wise details of amounts paid to the petitioners and the period for which said amounts pertain, along with all the related details like deposits made in respect of PF etc.  In compliance of these instructions, respondent filed a detailed affidavit dated 15.07.2023. As per affidavit, a total of Rs.8,10,762.55 has been paid towards salary, arrears of salary, PF with interest and arrears of PF etc. and gratuity with arrears.  Complete details of record of late Sh. Tribhuwan Pandey along with detailed working / fact sheet of eligible amounts under salary, PF and gratuity etc. have been given.  We have no reasons to disbelieve such details.  In view of details given in this affidavit, we find no reason to interfere with the orders of the State Commission and District Forum.  Hence the RP is dismissed.  However, in the interest of justice, we order that copy of detailed affidavit dated 15.07.2023 filed  by the respondent, which contains all the relevant details sought by the petitioner herein before the District Forum, may be given to them along with copy of this order. RP is disposed off accordingly.

Parties to bear their respective costs.

The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.