KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL Nos. 87/2018, 89/2018, 162/2018, 163/2018 &292/2018
COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 11.10.2021
(Against the Order in C.C.495/2016 and C.C.01/2017 of CDRF, Malappuram)
PRESENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
APPEAL No. 87/2018
APPELLANT:
Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Perinthalmanna (P.O.)
Malappuram District, Pin-679 322, Represented by its Secretary
(By Advs.K.T.Sidhiq & G.S.Kalkura)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
1. Mammutty K., S/o Muhammed, Kalthumpadiyan, Cherakkaparamb P.O., Malappuram, Pin-679 321
2. Raveendran P., Puthoor House, Perinthalmanna P.O., Malappuram District, Pin-679 322
3. Subaida K., Poovathingal House, Manathumangalam P.O., Malappuram, Pin-679 322
4. Muraleedharan K, ‘Pranavam’, Pattambi Road, Perinthalmanna P.O., Malappuram District, Pin-679 322
5. T. Hamza, S/o.Khader (Late), Thamarath House, Kakkooth, Perinthalmanna P.O., Pin-679 322
6. Muhammed Abdu Rahiman A.T., Ariprathodi House, Pattikkad P.O., Malappuram, Pin-679 321.
(By Adv.K.P. Moyin for R1 to R6)
7. Kerala State Co-operative Society Employees’ Pension Board, T.C.27/156, 157, Kala Nivas, Chinmaya Lane, Near Ayurveda College, Kunnumpuram P.B No.85, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695 001, represented by its Secretary/Registrar
(By Adv.A.Yarshad)
8. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, O/o. Regional Provided Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Eranhippalam, Kozhikode-6
(By Adv. Shaji Chellappan)
APPEAL No. 89/2018
APPELLANT:
Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Perinthalmanna (P.O.)
Malappuram District, Pin-679 322, Represented by its Secretary
(By Advs.K.T.Sidhiq & G.S.Kalkura)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
1. Vijayam C.V., Amulya, D.P.O Road, Malappuram (P.O.) Pin -676 505
2. Musthafa P., S/o.Kunhimuhammed, Pakkath House, Perinthalmanna (P.O), Malappuram District, Pin-679 322.
3. Unnikrihnan V.K., Vattakkavil, Thottakkara, Pathaikkara (P.O), Malappuram District, Pin-679 323
4. Raveendranathan K., ‘Krishnakripa’, T.N.Puram, Pulamanthole, Malappuram District, Pin-679 323.
(By Adv. K.P. Moyin for R1 to R4)
5. Kerala State Co-operative Society Employees’ Pension Board, T.C.27/156, 157, Kala Nivas, Chinmaya Lane, Near Ayurveda College, Kunnumpuram, P.B. No.85, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695 001, represented by its Secretary/ Registrar.
(By Adv.A.Yarshad)
6. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, O/o. Regional Provided Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Eranhippalam, Kozhikode-6
(By Adv.ShajiChellappan)
APPEAL No. 162/2018
APPELLANT:
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Eranhippalam, Kozhikode-6
(By Advs. Shaji Chellappan &Gopal & Ahamed)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
1. Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Perinthalmanna (P.O.)
Malappuram District, Pin-679 322, Represented by its Secretary
(By Adv. K.T.Sidhiq & G.S.Kalkura)
2. Kerala State Co-operative Society Employees’ Pension Board, T.C.27/156, 157, Kala Nivas, Chinmaya Lane, Near Ayurveda College, Kunnumpuram, P.B. No.85, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695 001, represented by its Secretary/ Registrar.
(By Advs. A.Yarshad & Anu Yarshad)
3. Mammutty K., S/o Muhammed, Kalthumpadiyan, Cherakkaparamb P.O., Malappuram, Pin-679 321
4. Raveendran P., Puthoor House, Perinthalmanna P.O., Malappuram District, Pin-679 322.
5. Subaida K., Poovathingal House, Manathumangalam P.O.,
Malappuram-679322
6. Muraleedharan K., Pranavam, Pattambi Road, Perintalmanna P.O., Malappuram-679 322
7. T.Hamza, S/o.Khadar (late), Thamarath House, Kakkooth, Perintalmanna P.O., Malappuram-679 322
8. Muhammed Abdu Rahiman A.T., Ariprathodi House, Pattikkad P.O., Malappuram- 679 322
(By Adv. K.P. Moyin for R3 to R8)
APPEAL No. 163/2018
APPELLANT:
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Eranhippalam, Kozhikode-6
(By Adv. Shaji Chellappan & Adv.Gopal& Ahamed)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
1. Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Perinthalmanna (P.O.)
Malappuram District, Pin-679 322, Represented by its Secretary.
(By Advs. K.T.Sidhiq & G.S.Kalkura)
2. Kerala State Co-operative Society Employees’ Pension Board, T.C.27/156, 157, Kala Nivas, Chinmaya Lane, Near Ayurveda College, Kunnumpuram, P.B. No.85, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695 001, represented by its Secretary/ Registrar.
(By Advs. A.Yarshad & Anu Yarshad)
3. Vijayam C.V., Amulya, D.P.O Road, Malappuram (P.O.) Pin -676 505
4. Musthafa P., S/o Kunhimuhammed, Pakkath House, Perinthalmanna (P.O), Malappuram District, Pin-679 322.
5. Unnikrishnan V.K., Vattakkavil, Thottakkara, Pathaikkara (P.O), Malappuram District, Pin-679 322
6. Raveendranathan K., ‘Krishnakripa’, T.N.Puram, Pulamanthole, Malappuram District, Pin-679 322.
(By Adv.K.P. Moyin for R3 to 6)
APPEAL No. 292/2018
APPELLANT :
The Secretary/Additional Registrar, Kerala State Co-operative Society Employees’ Pension Board, T.C.27/156, 157, Kala Nivas, Chinmaya Lane, Near Ayurveda College, Kunnumpuram, P.B. No.85, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695 001
(By Adv. A.Yarshad)
RESPONDENTS :
1. Mammutty K., S/o.Muhammed, Kalthumpadiyan, Cherakkaparamb P.O., Malappuram, Pin-679 321
2. Raveendran P., Puthoor House, Perinthalmanna P.O., Malappuram District, Pin-679 322.
3. Subaida K., Poovathingal House, Manathumangalam P.O.,
Malappuram-679322
4. Muraleedharan K., Pranavam, Pattambi Road, Perintalmanna P.O., Malappuram-679 322
5. T.Hamza, S/o.Khadar (late), Thamarath House, Kakkooth, Perintalmanna P.O., Malappuram-679 322
6. Muhammed Abdu Rahiman A.T., Ariprathodi House, Pattikkad P.O., Malappuram- 679 322
(By Adv. K.P.Moyin for R1 to R6)
7. The Secretary, Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Perinthalmanna (P.O.), Malappuram District, Pin-679 322
(By Adv.K.T.Sidhiq & G.S.Kalkura)
8. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Eranhippalam, Kozhikode-6
(By Adv.Shaji Chellappan)
COMMON JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
As per a common order dated 30.11.2017 the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) has allowed two complaints, C.C. 495/2016 & C.C. No. 1/2017. The above appeals are all filed by the opposite parties in the said complaints against the said common order.
Appeal No. 87/2018 is filed by the Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malappuram (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for short), the 1st opposite party in C.C. No. 495/2016. Appeal No. 89/2018 is also filed by the Bank against the order in C.C. No. 1/2017. Appeal Nos. 162/2018 & 163/2018 are filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the RPF Commissioner for short) against the common order. Appeal No.292/2018 is filed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Pension Board (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Board for short). All the appellants were opposite parties in the complaints filed before the District Forum. The complainants who are arrayed as the respondents in these appeals are all retired employees of the Bank.
The complainants had approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, in extracting from them under compulsion, substantial amounts, without any justification. The case of the complainants was that, they were all members of the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as EPF Pension Scheme for short). They had been remitting contributions to the said scheme during their tenure as employees of the bank, without any default. The employer’s contribution was also being paid regularly by the bank. In 1994 the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Co-operative Pension Scheme for short) was brought into force. Since the said scheme was found to be more beneficial, the complainants had opted for and joined the said scheme as permitted by law. Thereafter, the RPF Commissioner had relieved them from the EPF Pension Scheme and the contributions made by them, with accrued interest had been transferred to the Co-operative Pension Scheme as their shares. According to them receipt of the said amounts has also been admitted by the bank and the Pension Board. Since amounts were being remitted regularly to the scheme no further amount was due or payable by the employees to the said scheme. However, at the time of submitting their pension dockets, the bank insisted on payment of huge amounts as employer’s contribution to the Co-operative Pension Scheme. The bank took an obstinate stand that the pension dockets of the complainants would not be forwarded to the Pension Board unless the payments demanded were made. Left with no other alternative, the complainants had to make the payments as insisted by the bank. Thereafter, the bank forwarded the pension dockets of the complainants to the Pension Board. Though the complainants had objected to the action of the bank in making them pay substantial amounts, the bank refused to return the amounts paid by them. They had complained to the Director Board of the bank also, without any favourable outcome. According to the complainants, the Pension Fund was constituted with 8.33% of the employer’s contribution. Therefore, there was no provision for the employees to make any contribution. Since money had been extracted from them by the bank, they prayed for the issue of appropriate orders for return of the amounts. They also alleged that the conduct of the bank as well as the other opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service. They had initially filed cases before the Kerala Cop-operative Arbitration Court (Northern) Calicut, but had withdrawn the said cases later, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala holding that the Arbitration court had no jurisdiction in such matters. The complainants therefore sought refund of the amounts paid by them.
The opposite parties contested both the complaints putting forward similar contentions. According to the Bank the complainants had all retired from service before 2013 and therefore their claims were barred by limitation. According to the bank the complainants were not consumers coming within the definition contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). It was also contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the bank. The bank further pointed out that the complainants had initially filed cases before the Arbitration Court, but had later on withdrawn them since according to them, they wanted to file complaints before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Since they had not filed any complaint before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies it was contended that the complaints were not maintainable. It was admitted by the bank that the complainants were initially members of the pension scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act for short) and that they had later on joined the Co-operative Pension Scheme. As per the EPF Act both the employer and the employee were to make contributions to the Provident Fund @ 12% of the salary of the employee. 8.33% of the contribution of the employer was transferred to the pension fund under the EPF Act to constitute the said fund. The balance amount was to remain as Provident Fund. The complainants had opted for joining the Co-operative pension scheme in 2009. Before they had joined the Co-operative pension scheme, the complainants had received advances for various purposes like marriage, house construction, medical treatment, education etc. As per Sec. 18 of the Pension Scheme 1994 an employee who has received the contributory provident fund shall be eligible for pension only on refund of that portion of the employer’s contribution together with interest thereon to the Co-operative Pension Fund. Consequent to the joining of the Co-operative Pension Scheme, the amounts remaining to the credit of the complainants in the EPF Pension Scheme were transferred to the Co-operative Pension Board. According to the Bank, the Co-operative Pension Board had directed the bank to remit the amounts withdrawn by the complainants for various purposes as stated above. In compliance with the said direction the bank had insisted on remittance of the said amounts by the complainants. To assist them in raising the said amounts loan facility was also provided by the bank. The amounts so paid are in the custody of the Co-operative Pension Board. The entire amount was transferred to the Board. Since no objection was raised by the complainants for a long time after they had made the payments, their present claim was hit by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. Therefore, the bank contended that no amount was due or payable to the complainants by them.
The Pension Board also contested the complaints by filing versions. According to them, on 14.03.1995 the Govt. introduced the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme for payment of pension to the employees of primary co-operative societies coming under the control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. On 19.06.2006 the Govt. permitted the primary co-operative societies coming under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act to opt for coming under or to enroll in the Co-operative Pension Scheme. Thereupon, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued a circular dated 07.11.2008 to stop payment of pension to employees who had retired after 30.06.2006 and decided to transfer the remittances in respect of those employees to the Pension Board. As per the provisions of the pension scheme, an employee who has received the provident fund shall be eligible for pension only on refund of that portion of the employer’s contribution together with interest to the pension fund before applying for pension. It was admitted that the complainants were all members of the self-financing pension scheme. On the basis of applications submitted by the bank pension dockets were issued in the names of the complainants. On receipt of their applications, the Pension Board office verified and found that the bank had remitted the entire pension fund contribution in the name of the complainants. Therefore, eligible pension was sanctioned to them. As per Govt. order dated 08.11.2010, in the case of persons who had retired from societies enrolled under the EPF Pension scheme and who had been drawing pension from the EPF Scheme, the societies shall remit the pension fund with interest at the rates existing in the EPF scheme during their period of service and pension shall be payable from the succeeding month after remittance of the entire portion of the employers’ contribution to the pension fund. Since the Pension Board had sanctioned eligible pension to the complainants as per the existing rules, the complaints were only to be dismissed, it was contended.
The RPF Commissioner filed separate version. According to them, as per Govt. Order dated 19.06.2006 primary co-operative societies were exempted from the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund pension scheme. In compliance with the order of the Govt. the employee’s pension fund contributions in respect of the complainants were transferred to the Pension Board on 20.08.2009. Therefore, it is the Pension Board that has to pay pension to the complainants. The RPF Commissioner is not bound to pay pension to the complainants for the reason that the pension fund of the complainants had already been transferred to the Pension Board. For the above reason, the RPF Commissioner was not a necessary party to the proceedings.
On the basis of the above pleadings, both parties let in evidence. Exts. A1 & A2 were marked on the side of the complainants in C.C. No. 495/2016 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainants in C.C. No. 1/17. On the side of the opposite parties, Ext. B1 to B22 documents were marked in C.C. No. 495/2016. Opposite parties 1 to 3 also filed affidavits. Complainants and opposite parties 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 1/17 filed affidavits and Exts. B1 to B20 were marked.
The District Forum considered the contentions of both parties on the basis of the evidence on record. The District Forum found that the complaints were maintainable and that the plea of limitation put forward was unsustainable. Since the complaint was filed for realization of amounts that were recovered forcibly by the bank from the employees, it was found that the complaints were maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Though it was contended that the amounts that were compelled to be paid by the complainants represented amounts that they had withdrawn for various needs during the period that they were members of the pension scheme under the EPF Act, the District Forum rejected the said contention since there was no evidence available in support thereof. It was found that, there was no provision permitting recovery of the said amounts from the complainants. Since there was no dispute with respect to the quantum of the amounts recovered from each of the complainants, the District Forum has directed return of the amounts so recovered. These appeals are all filed challenging the said common order.
According to the bank, the amounts were recovered for the reason that the Pension Board had directed the bank to do so. The amounts represented the advances that the complainants had taken for various needs like marriage, house construction, education, medical treatment etc. As per the provisions of the pension scheme, the said amounts were liable to be recovered. In order to help the complainants raise the said amount, the bank had also provided them with loans.
According to the Pension Board, they had not issued any direction to the bank to recover any such amounts from the complainants, as contended. No amount so collected has also been remitted to the Pension Board. What has been remitted to the Board are the amounts that were remaining as the employer’s contribution in respect of each of the complainants under the RPF pension scheme. As soon as such amounts were remitted by the bank, the applications of the complainants were processed and pension was also paid by the Board. Therefore the District Forum went wrong in finding that the Pension Board was liable to compensate the complainants.
According to the RPF Commissioner, the amount that was remaining to the credit of the complainants had been promptly transferred to the Pension Board after the complainants had opted to be governed by the provisions thereof. The RPF Commissioner had therefore acted promptly in the matter. No amount collected from the complainants has admittedly been remitted to the RPF Commissioner. Therefore, the District Forum went wrong in making the RPF Commissioner also liable to compensate the complainants. Hence, it is contended that the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
According to the counsel for the bank, the District Forum has seriously erred in finding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in the complaint. The complainants were all members of the EPF pension scheme initially. Admittedly they had opted for the Co-operative Societies Pension Scheme, finding it to be more beneficial to them. However, while they were members of the EPF Pension scheme, they had availed various advances, all of which had to be refunded before they could be paid pension under the Co-operative societies pension scheme. It was for the said reason that they were directed to pay the amounts due from them. Such amounts were demanded, as directed by the Pension Board and the amounts so recovered were also remitted to the said Board. Since the Bank is not in possession of any amount recovered from the complainants, they are not entitled to claim any amount from the bank. The District Forum failed to take note of the above factual position and has made the bank liable to pay the said amounts, without any basis. Therefore, according to the counsel, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside.
The RPF commissioner found fault with the District Commission for having made the said authority liable to pay the amounts that were admittedly recovered by the bank. It is pointed out that, the RPF Commissioner had promptly remitted the amounts remaining in the pension fund of the complainants to the Pension Board, as evident from Exts. B21 & B22 in CC. No. 495/2016 and Exts. B19 & B20 in C.C. No. 1/2017. The payments were made in the year 2009 itself. Therefore, the District Forum went wrong in making the RPF Commissioner also liable to compensate the complainants. He therefore seeks interference with the order of the District Forum.
The counsel for the Pension Board attacks the order of the District Forum contending that the finding of deficiency in service on the part of the Board is without any rhyme or reason. The Board had on receipt of the applications made by the complainants processed the same and had started payment of pension to which they were eligible, promptly and without delay. The Pension Board had not issued any direction to the Bank as alleged, or directed the Bank to recover any amounts from the complainants. Since the Pension Board had acted promptly on the applications submitted by the complainants, there has been no fault on their part. The counsel therefore seeks interference with the order appealed against and setting aside of the same.
The counsel for the complainants who are respondents in these appeals laments that his clients are haplessemployees of the bank who were compelled to part with substantial sums of money on the insistence of the bank. They were compelled to do so under the threat that unless the amounts were remitted, their pension dockets would not be processed. It was, left with no other alternative that they had paid the amounts demanded, after raising the same with great difficulty. The conduct of the appellants amounted to exploitation of the retired employees and constitutes a serious deficiency in service as rightly found by the District Forum. The learned counsel contends that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum. It is further contended that the complainants who are all aged and ailing, have been dragged to this Commission, to defend these appeals causing needless hardships and trouble to them. According to the learned counsel, neither under the EPF Pension Scheme nor under the Co-operative Societies pension scheme is there any provision requiring contributions to be made by the employees. The pension fund is constituted utilizing 8.33% out of the 12% contribution paid by the employer. Therefore, there was no occasion to compel the complainants to make the payments as done in these cases. The allegation that the complainants had all taken advances from their Provident Fund accounts for various purposes is denied by the complainants. According to the learned counsel, all the appellants before us are privies to the action complained of by the complainants. The District Forum has rightly directed return of the amounts illegally recovered and also to pay compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the said order, it is contended.
We have heard these appeals elaborately. We have also been taken through the records of the case. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced before us.
The first contention put forward is that the complaints were barred by limitation under Sec. 24 A of the Act. It is contended that, the complainants had retired from service on various dates in 2013 and therefore, the complaints were not within the time limit stipulated by Sec. 24 A of the Act. It is not in dispute that, initially the complainants had approached the Arbitration Court by filing ARC NO. 75/2014, 78/2014, 68/2014, 71/2014, 73/2014, 74/2014 and 77/2014. But, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court that the monetary claims of the complainants were not maintainable before the Arbitration Court, the said cases were got withdrawn, but on the assumption that the proper forum was the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. However, they filed the complaints before the District Forum. Since they were diligently prosecuting their claims before a wrong authority, the District Forum has held that the complaints were not barred by limitation. The contention of the bank is that since the amount was recovered in 2013 the complaints ought to have been filed at least by 2015. However, Sec. 24 A also gives power to the District Forum to entertain complaints filed even after the expiry of the time limit provided the District Forum finds that there was sufficient cause for the delay. In the present case, the District Forum has found that there was sufficient cause for the delay. The said finding is absolutely right and does not call for any interference in appeal.
The second contention put forward by the appellants is that the complainants are not consumers under the Act. What is at issue are complaints regarding payment of pension due to retired employees. The appellants were not providing any service to the complainants on consideration. Therefore, it is contended that the complainants do not answer the definition of ‘consumer’ contained in the Act.
It is not in dispute that the complainants were all employees of the Bank. The dates on which these complainants had retired from service is also admitted. It is not in dispute that, they are all persons who are entitled to be paid pension from the Co-operative Pension Fund. The question as to whether retired employees of co-operative societies who are members of the pension scheme 1994 were consumers has been considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board Vs. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum 2004 (1) KLT 111. After considering the various contentions put forward, A.K. Basheer J has concluded the issue in the following words:
19. In the above facts and circumstances, it is held that the Board constituted under Clause 4 for administration of the Pension Fund under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Scheme, 1994 is providing ‘service’ as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The retired employees of the Co-operative Societies who are members of the Pension Scheme 1994 are consumers as defined under the Act. Therefore Ext.P1 complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
In view of the above authoritative pronouncement, the contention of the appellants that the complainants in these cases are not consumers has no legs to stand. The said contention is therefore rejected.
The next contention vigorously canvassed by the appellants is that there has been no deficiency in service on their part. According to the bank, the complainants were all enrolled in the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme and had received advances for various necessities like medical treatment, house construction, marriage, education etc. The amounts so received as advances were liable to be refunded before pension could be sanctioned to them. It was for the said reason that, various sums of money were recovered from the complainants by the Bank. Such amounts were recovered on the basis of instructions given by the Pension Board. Therefore, recovery of the said amounts cannot be characterized as exploitation of the employees, as contended by the complainants. On the above basis, the Bank contends that the District Forum went wrong in finding deficiency in service for effecting the said recoveries. However, it is the specific contention of the Pension Board that it had not issued any communication to the Bank directing recovery of any amount from the complainants.
It is worth noticing that, the Bank admits the recovery of amounts from the complainants, as alleged by them. The Bank does not dispute the correctness of the amounts that are alleged to have been recovered from each of the complainants. Therefore, the only question that requires to be considered is whether there was any justification for recovery of the said amounts. Though it is contended by the bank that the recoveries were made on the directions of the Pension Board, the said contention is denied by the Pension Board. No documentary evidence of any such communication has been produced by the Bank in these proceedings. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the Pension Board had issued any such communication directing the bank to recover any amount from the complainants.
It is clear from a perusal of the Pension Rules that the Pension Fund is to be constituted with contributions from the employer. What is provided is that there shall be established a pension fund for payment of pension to the employees of the Co-operative Societies, to which shall be credited a monthly contribution by the society @ 12% of the pay as specified in clause 2(g) in respect of each of the employees. According to the Pension Board, it is the duty of the employer society to remit the pension fund in accordance with the provisions of the pension scheme. It is hence clear that there is no provision for collection of any contribution from the employees. Therefore, the contention of the bank that amounts were collected from the complainants to be paid to the pension fund cannot be accepted.
We notice that, as per clause 38 of the co-operative Pension Scheme, if any amount is due from a society to the pension fund as arrears, it is for the Secretary of the Society to clear such arrears. If the society fails to clear such arrears, the Board has the power to realize such arrears by taking resort to Revenue Recovery proceedings. As per the Pension Scheme, the employer’s contribution remaining to the credit of the employees in the EPF Pension scheme had to be transferred to the Co-operative Societies Pension fund. According to the RPF Commissioner the amounts standing to the credit of the complainants in the EPF Pension scheme had been transferred to the Pension Board in the year 2009 itself as evidenced by the documents produced. Therefore, there does not appear to have been any further requirement of payment of any amount by the complainants. However, in this case, admittedly substantial amounts have been recovered from the complainants by the Bank.
The only justification put forward for recovery of amounts from the complainants is that, advances received by them for various necessities had to be recovered before they could be paid pension. However, the counsel has not been able to point out to us any provision of law under which such recoveries have been contemplated. The complainants deny having received any such advances as alleged by the bank. In the face of such denial, it was imperative that documents to evidence such payment were produced by the bank. If advances had actually been paid to the complainants, there certainly would have been documents to evidence such payments. It cannot be supposed that the bank would have made payments to its employees without such payments being reflected in their accounts. Therefore, the only conclusion possible is that such contentions are absolutely baseless. The District Forum was therefore fully justified in finding that the recoveries made by the bank from the complainants were illegal and amounted to deficiency in service.
The RPF Commissioner had transferred the amounts standing to the credit of the complainants to the Pension Board in the year 2009 itself, as evidenced by the documents produced by them. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency or fault on the part of the said authority. The Pension Board has processed the applications of the complainants and paid the pension due to them, without delay. There is also no evidence on record to show that they had directed the Bank to recover any amount from the complainants, as alleged. Therefore, there are no grounds to find deficiency in service on the part of the Pension Board also. The Bank has not disclosed the circumstances under which they had compelled the complainants to make the remittances of which the allegations in the complaints are concerned. The Bank has also not disclosed how the money so collected was utilized. Be that as it may, there cannot be any doubt that the recoveries so made by the Bank were unauthorized and unjustified. They have obviously utilized the said amounts to pay the contributions that they were liable to make to the Pension Fund. In any view of the matter, the conduct of the Bank constitutes a serious deficiency in service. Therefore, the District Forum was fully justified in granting relief by directing return of the amounts illegally collected from the complainants and awarding compensation and costs. We find no grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum, except to confine the liability for deficiency in service on the Bank alone.
In the light of the above discussion, these appeals are disposed of as follows:
- Appeal Nos. 87/18 & 89/2018 are dismissed with costs quantified and fixed at Rs. 5,000/- in respect of each of the complainants who are respondents 1 to 6 in A 87/2018 and respondents 1 to 4 in A 89/2018.
- Appeal Nos. 162/18 & 163/2018 are allowed to the limited extent of exonerating the appellant from the liability to pay the amounts directed to be paid to the complainants by the District Forum, including compensation and costs.
- Appeal No. 292/18 is allowed to the limited extent of exonerating the appellant from the liability to pay the amounts directed to be paid to the complainants by the District Forum, including compensation and costs.
- The order under appeal is confirmed in all other aspects.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
jb
