Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/565

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATHYA DEVAN - Opp.Party(s)

RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.565/2013

JUDGMENT DATED : 14.01.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.178/2010 on the file of CDRF, Kollam order dated : 11.07.2013)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

The Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner,

Provident Funds Organization,

Kollam

 

(By Adv.Sri.K.Ramachandran Nair)

 

VS

 

RESPONDENT

 

Sathya Devan,

Vilayil Puthen veedu,

Madanthacode,

Nellimukku.P.O

Kizhimathicadu,

Kollam

 

(By Adv.Sri.Murali Madanthacodu)

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.178/2010 in the CDRF, Kollam. The sole respondent was the complainant. He was a worker in the Rajkumar Impex Cashew Factory, Karipra. The complainant alleged that he entered into service as cashew worker on 01.06.1996 and left service on 20.04.2008. He had total service of 11 years 10 months and 19 days which as per rules is to be rounded to 12 years. He was contributing to pension fund in Account No.KR 1186/1888. But eligible pension was not given by the opposite party. He was entitled to monthly pension of Rs.630/-. The failure to pay pension for 12 years service is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          2.      The opposite party filed version and contended that as per records the complainant joined the pension fund on 01.06.1996. As his date of birth was on 21.04.1950, he retired from service on attaining 58 years on 20.04.2008. But he is having pensionable service of three years and 8 days only. The rest of service of 8 years 10 months and one day is not contributory service with break in service. The case of the complainant was reviewed by the opposite party and revised pension of Rs.226/- is being given to him. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          3.      Before the consumer forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.P1 and P2 were marked on his side. One witness was examined on the side of the opposite party. Ext.D1 was marked on their side. The consumer forum finding no justification in reducing the total service of 12 years to 3 years allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay monthly pension of Rs.905/- . Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party has preferred this appeal. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant was right in calculating the pensionable service as three years only.

          4.      Admittedly, the complainant has only actual service as contemplated by the employees pension scheme 1995. He was admittedly contributing to the pension fund from 01.06.1996 till 20.04.2008. So as per records the period of service is 12 years. The appellant excluded 8 years 10 months and one day from the total service of the complainant as break in service because of non contribution to pension fund. The question is whether this is justified. The appellant seeks to justify this exclusion on the basis of Ext.R1. It is seen that in 1995 out of the total working days of 170 in the cashew factory the complainant had worked on 155 days. Similarly, in the year 1996 out of the total 94 working days the complainant had worked on 80 days and so on. In short, the appellant has taken into account contribution to pension fund on day today basis. Such a calculation of break in service is not contemplated by the employees pension scheme 1995. It is pertinent to notice that work in a cashew factory is seasonal depending on the availability of raw cashew nuts. So in determining the eligible service the explanation to paragraph 9 (a) of the employees pension scheme has to be taken into account. The explanation requires the authorities to reckon actual service in such cases in terms of full year even in case the service is less than a year. So appellant was not justified in taking into account contribution on day today basis and decide break in service. The appellant has no case that the complainant and his employer have not contributed to the pension fund for the days in which the complainant had actually worked. In short, the consumer forum was fully justified in holding that the complainant had actual service of 12 years. The appellant is bound to pay pension to the complainant on the basis that he has actual service of 12 years. Hence the appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but without costs.

  K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                   A.RADHA            : MEMBER

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACAUD

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.565/2013

JUDGMENT

 DATED : 14.01.2015

 

                                                                                                                                                                           BE/