1. The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Provident Fund Organisation”), Opposite Party challenging the Order dated 31.01.2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 462 of 2013.  By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 144/2010 whereby, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to pay monthly pension of ₹492/- from 01.03.1996.  The Organisation was also directed to pay arrears amount alongwith interest @6% p.a. from 01.03.1996 till the date of payment together cost of ₹1500/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant worked at Sastha Enterprises, a cashew factory, w.e.f. 01.03.1974 to 1996.  She joined as member of Employees Provident Fund on 01.03.1974 and her PF Account No. being KR/2965/725.  She fell ill and despite taking treatment continuously in Ayurvedic department she was not fully recovered and hence applied for pension in 2009.  Despite having past service for a period of 22 years, she was not granted pension by the Provident Fund Organisation on the ground that there is 16 ½ years of service break in service.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation, a Complaint was filed before the District Forum.

3. Upon notice, by filing its Written Version, the Provident Fund Organisation contested the Complaint on the ground that as per the break certificate issued by the employer, the Complainant has put in 16 years 6 months of non-contributory past service and hence she has rendered only 5 years two months and 14 days of eligible service out of the total past service of 21 years 8 months and 14 days from 01.03.1974 to 15.11.1995.  For making the entire past service of 22 years as eligible contributory service the Complainant was directed to remit ₹12,454/- towards pension fund for the non-contributory period of past service but she did not deposit the same. She opted for reduced pension and filed Form No. 10 Application.  The minimum period to get pension is 10 years but in this case the Complainant has only 5 years 2 months and 14 days eligible service, therefore, she is not entitled for any pension.  It was submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

4. On analysis of the evidence adduced by the Parties before it, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint by observing as under:-

“….It is admitted that the complainant was a cashew worker having account number KR/2526/725 and she has joined as EPF member on 1/3/1974 and she left service on 10/2/1996. The form No. 10 application submitted by the complainant was returned by opposite party for regularizing the break of service of 16 years and 6 months. According to the complainant, she is having past service for a period of 22 years and also no amount is to be paid for regularizing the break of service of 16 years and 6 months. Opposite party directed the complainant to remit ₹12454 in form No.10 for regularizing the break of service. According to the opposite party the complainant has rendered only 5 years 2 months and 14 days of eligible service.Since the Complainant has only 5 years 2 months and 14 days of eligible service, she is not entitled to get pension. There is no dispute that the complainant entered into family pension fund scheme in 1/3/1974 and left service on 10/2/1996. Ext.D2 also that the complainant worked in all the 22 years. The method of calculation of pensionable service adopted by the opposite party is wrong. As the cashew industry is a seasonal industry there will be seasonal break in Employment. The employee is not responsible for this break. As per provision, service has to be calculated in the unit of years and not in the unit of days or months. Then as per Ext.D2 the complainant worked in all the 22 years of her service without break. Reducing the total service of 22 years of the complainant to 5 years cannot be accepted. As per Ext.D2 the eligible service of the complainant is 22 years and not liable to remit the regularization amount. So the complainant is eligible for the monthly pension.

Actual Service Pension as per para 12 (5) (1) (a) is ₹335/-

Past Service Pension as per para 12 (5) (1) (b) and para 12 (3) (1) (b) is

150x1.049 =157.35.

Hence monthly pension is 335+157.35 = 492.35

1. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to pay monthly pension of ₹492 from 1/3/1996. The opposite party is also directed to pay the arrears amount along with interest at the rate of 6% from 1/3/1996 till the date of payment. Opposite party is further directed to pay cost ₹1500/-. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

5. 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 break in service is alleged because she had not worked for the remaining days of the year. This is not because of any fault of the complainant. The work in a cashew factory is seasonal and that was the reason why there were so many days in which she could not work. That apart the Employees’ Pension Scheme does not contemplate calculation of break in service in terms of days. This is evident from the explanation to paragraph 9 of the scheme.

The argument that in order to regularize the service contribution of ₹12,444/- is to be made is based on the assumption that there was break in service which is not sustainable. That apart this argument itself presupposes that there was no break in service but only failure to contribute towards the employees’ pension fund. But it is evident from paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the scheme that employees pension fund is formed out of the contribution payable by the employer in each month and the contribution payable by the Central Government. When there was failure to contribute towards the pension fund it was for the appellant to take appropriate coercive action against the Employer.

The complainant cashew worker cannot be denied pension for the failure of the employer or the appellant themselves. So there is no error in the findings of the consumer forum. It appears that paragraph 12 of the employees’ pension scheme applies in calculating the pension due to the complainant, in short, here is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.”

6. Being aggrieved, challenging the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation has filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

7. Mr. Puneet Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation, submitted that the State Commission had failed to appreciate that as per break service certificate provided by the Employer, after deducting a period of 16 years and 06 months non-contributory days of break service without wages, the Respondent/Complainant has net pensionable service is 5 years 2 months and 14 days as per applicable laws and rules.  The non-contributory period cannot be taken into account while arriving pensionable service period.  It was prayed that the Orders passed by the Fora below be set aside and the Complaint be dismissed.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. After going through the documents 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 District Forum has rightly observed that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Provident Fund Organisation in fixing the monthly pension of the Complainant/Respondent by reducing the total service of 22 years of the Complainant to 5 years and the finding of the District Forum has been rightly affirmed by the State Commission vide its well-reasoned Order dated 31.01.2015.  While passing the Orders, the District Forum as well as 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 Orders passed by the Fora below.  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. .....”

11. For the reasons stated hereinabove and 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.