1. The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Assistant 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. 463 of 2013.  By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 336/2009 whereby, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to pay monthly pension of ₹1084/- from 2007 with arrears of pension alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 01.02.2007 till the date of payment together with cost of ₹1500/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had joined as a worker at KSCDC Factory Kadakkal in the year 1974.  Her PF A/c No. was KR/2687/518.  She has total service from of 34 years from 1974 to 2008.  After attaining the age of 58 years on 31.12.2007, she preferred an application for superannuation pension to Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation in the year 2008.  The Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation sanctioned her monthly pension of ₹874/-.  It is the case of the Complainant that like other co-worker, who are getting monthly pension of ₹1000/-, although she is also eligible for monthly pension of ₹1083/- yet      the Opposite Party Organisation has wrongly sanctioned her monthly pension of ₹874/-.  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 the EPF contribution in respect of the Complainant had started deducted from 26.01.1975.  Her gross past service from 26.01.1975 to 15.11.1995 was 20 years 9 months and 19 days and after deducting the break of 16 years 8 months and 23 days, her net service was 4 years and 26 days only, which was taken into consideration for calculating her pensionary benefits.  As per para 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, her pension was sanctioned at ₹874/-.  It was submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

4. After hearing both the Parties and on analysis of the evidence adduced by the Parties before it, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint in above terms by observing as under:-

“Here the dispute is with regard to quantum of pension. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant was a cashew worker in KSCDC Kadakkal factory and she entired into PF Service on 26/1/1975 and left service on 25/1/2007. Opposite party also admits that she has joint the EPF scheme in 26/1/1975. According to the complainant from the above facts the complainant has got past service 20 years, 9 months and 19 days which can be rounded to 21 years. But according to the opposite party, the net past service of the complainant is 4 years 26 days. On calculation the total pension, the dispute is with regard to past service pension. According to both parties Actual service pension as per para 12 (3) (1) (a) is ₹635/-.

With regard to past service period, the opposite party contented that, even though the gross past service of the complaint from 26/1/1975 to 15/11/1975 is 20 year 9 months and 19 days, after deducting the break of 16 years 8 months and 23 days, that net past service is only 4 years 26 days. For proving the said contention, the opposite party produced Ext.D-2, the Complainant has worked in all the 21 years. The break days in each years cannot be considered as break in service. On perusal of Ext.D-2 it is clear that the complainant has net 21 years past service. Reducing the past service of 21 years to 4 years without any basis and without any provision is injustice.

On taking the past service as 21 years, the past service pension of the complainant as per para (3) (1) (b) is 150x2.992

=448.80 which can be rounded to ₹449/-

Here the monthly pension of the complainant is aggregate of past service pension + actual service pension ie449+635 =1 ₹1084/-

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed topay monthly pensionof ₹1084/- from 2007. The arrears of pension will be given with interest at the rate of 9% from 1/02/2007 till the date of payment. The opposite party is further directed to pay cost of ₹1500. the order has to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the 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 argument is based on Ext. D-2 showing the details of past service of the complainant. It can be seen from Ext. D-2 that the complainant had worked almost on all days when there was work in the cashew factory. For example during 1976 she had attendant work on 80 days out of the 87 working days. In 1988 she has attendant work on 95 days out of 101 working days. So obviously, the work in a cashew factory being a seasonal one, the complainant was unable to attend work on the remaining days. This being the situation the employees pension scheme does not contemplate calculation of actual service in terms of days, but only in terms of years. This is evident from the explanation to paragraph 9 (a) of the employees pension scheme 1995. Apart from that paragraph 3, 4 and 5 make it clear that the employees pension fund is formed out of the contributions payable by the employer in each month along with the contribution by the central govt. it is the obligation of the appellant if there was no contribution by the employer to take coercive steps to realize contribution and the employee cannot be penalized for their failure to do so. It follows that the appellant was not justified in excluding the service of 16 years 8 months and 23 days put in by the complainant as past service on the assumption that there was break in service. It follow that there is no error in the conclusions of the consumer forum. The appeal is devoid of merit..”

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 both the lower fora had wrongly considered the Complainant’s past service which is against the provisions of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.  The non-contributory period shall be regularized only by remitting the required contribution.  The State Commission had failed to appreciate that in view of the provisions of EPS, 1995, the Complainant’s past service is less than 10 years.  The impugned Order passed by the State Commission is wrong and contrary to law. 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 State Commission vide Impugned Order dated 31.01.2015 has rightly affirmed the findings recorded by the District Forum 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 past service of 21 years of the Complainant to 4 years without any basis.  While passing the Impugned Order dated 31.01.2015, 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 Order passed by the State Commission.  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. Thus, 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.