IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2016
Present: - Smt. G.Vasanthakumari, President
Adv. Ravisusha, Member
Adv.M.Praveen Kumar, Member
CC.No.302/2011
Chellamma : Complainant
Mukaluvila Veedu
Thekkemuri
East Kallada P.O
Kollam – 691502
[By Adv.Kallada.P.Kunjumon, Kollam]
V/S
1. The Regional Provident Fund : Opposite parties
Sub Regional Office
Parameswaran Pillai Nagar
[By Adv.K.Ramachandran Nair, Kollam]
2. The Managing Director
Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation
Cashew House, Mundakkal
Kollam
(Impleaded as per order on IA 97/15 dated 11/09/2015)
[By Adv.M.Sreeranganadhan, Kollam]
ORDER
SMT.G.VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT
Complainant’s case is that complainant was an employee of the KSCDC Ltd, Factory No.15, Chittumala as shelling worker No.41, till her superannuation at the age of 60 on 31/12/96, who contributed to the Employees Provident Funds, as per A/c No.KR/1156/106, under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, without fail, that as per the factory records, on her retirement , she had applied for pension under monthly pension scheme 1995 under the above Act commenced on and from 01/04/93, through the employer, that the opposite party denied pension to the alleging that she had attained the age of 60 years before the commencement of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, but she again applied for said benefit showing that she attained the age of 60 years only on 31/12/96 and thereby she continuously complained her grievance to the higher authorities including the Labour Minster of Kerala and
(2)
finally she is forced to sent a written application to the opposite party on 02/09/2010 and requested for the extension of the pensionary benefits to her under Employees Pension Scheme 1995 but not replied so far, that the complainant being a contributory to the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971, she is entitled to get the pensionary benefits under Employees Pension Scheme 1995 from 01/01/97 and the denial of pension to her amounts to deficiency in service from the opposite party, that under the Employees Pension Scheme above, there is no cut of date of the application for pension and the benefit being continuous, she got the right to submit application for pension at any time before death, that the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, has introduced for extending pension to the Employees in service from 01/04/93 with a minimum eligible service of 10 years from 1971, that the complainant had got more than 20 years of service , till her retirement and realized contributions from her wages till superannuation and the denial of pension had to denial of justice and deficiency of service and thus the complainant sustained loss, hardship and mental agony, besides monetary loss in her old age, that the opposite party did not raise any objections in respect of the realization of contributions till her retirement, that the opposite party had not informed her about the date of birth alleged to have been included in the records of the opposite party till her retirement, that the date of birth had entered in the factory records as 1936 wherein she worked till 31/12/96 and on superannuation she had applied for the pension as narrated above, that the complainant has no knowledge regarding the date of birth other than entered in the factory records, that the complainant rendered more than 20 years of continuous service who is entitled to get the weightage of two years service under paragraph 10(2) of the above scheme, that the complainant has got a total continuous service of 28 years, that there is no provision or any in pediments in the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 to deny pension to the complainant and hence this complaint praying to direct the opposite party to extent the monthly pension @ 835/- per month under paragraph 12(5)(a) and 12(5) from 01/01/97 together with 12% interest per annum till realization and 12% paid interest from 1/01/97 under paragraph 17(A) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, till realization, to pay the Return of Capital provided in the Monthly Pension Scheme 1995 and to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service caused by the opposite party and for mental agony and suffering, together with Rs.50,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the employer is not a party, that the complainant retired
(3)
from service on 30/12/1996, her EPF account was finally settled during 1996-97 itself, and as such she was out of the ambit of the EPF scheme 1952, that this complaint after a long period of 15 years is barred by limitation, that she did not produce any corroborating evidence to prove that she had either opted to EFPS, 1971 or to EPS, 1995, that while impleamenting the Employees Family Pension scheme, 1971 all the members in the EPFS, 1952 were given chances for option to join the Family Pension Scheme or not to join in the scheme , that those who joined have to contribute 1.16% of their wages to the Employees Family Pension Fund in both Employees and Employees share from and out of the contribution payable to EPS scheme 1952, that the complainant did not join either in the EPPS 1971 or under the EPS 1995 till cessation of her membership and ceased as a non EPF member, that if the employees is an EPF member, it is the duty of the employer to submit relevant records before the opposite party to substantiate that the said employee was a contributory to EPS, 1995, that the opposite party issued notices dated 20/03/2013, and 16/04/2013 to the Employer to produce the records to prove that the complainant was a member either under EPFS, 1971 or under EPS, 1995, that in reply to the notice, the employer submitted a letter dated 15/05/2013 stating that the complainant has not opted to EPFS, 1971 or EPS, 1995 till her retirement and hence no contribution towards pension scheme recovered from her, that opposite party has deputed a squad of Enforcement officers to verify the relevant registers and records of the establishment relating to the complainant and to ensure whether the complainant had opted for membership in the Employees Family Pension Fund 1971 and was contributing to pension Fund, that in compliance with the direction, the squad of officers visited the establishment on 26/04/2013 and after verification of records of the establishment submitted a report where in it is clearly stated that the complainant had not contributed to EFPS , 1971/EPS, 1995 and as such this complainant is not eligible for pension benefits from EPS, 95 as she was not a member during her service/membership under EPFS, 1952 and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
Employer impleaded as additional 2nd opposite party and filed version contending that the complainant was a peeling worker as per the records maintained by the additional 2nd opposite party, that there arose no dispute relating to the deductions, that no relief sought against additional 2nd opposite party and the complaint is only to be dismissed.
The points that would arise for consideration are:-
(1).Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party1?
(4)
(2).Reliefs and costs?
The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and documentary evidence Exts P1 to P6 and D1 to D3.
The Points:- It is the specific case of the complainant that on her retirement she had applied for pension under monthly pension scheme 1995 but opposite party denied the same on the ground that she had attained the age of 60 years before the commencement of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. In Ext.P1 identity card issued from E.S.I Corporation, her year of birth is shown as 1936 and no other evidence adduced to show her date of birth. In the complaint she categorically stated that she has no knowledge regarding her date of birth other than the one entered in the factory records. Admittedly she retired from service on 30/12/1996. According to the opposite party her EPF account was finally settled during 1996-97 itself. It is in evidence through Ext.D1 report of her squad dated 26/04/2013 that the complainant is not a contributory to the Employees Family Pension scheme 1971. She did not opt to join the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971when it came into existence on 01/03/1971 and continued to be a non-family pension fund holder till her retirement.Ext.D3 letter issued by Employer shows that contribution towards pension fund have not been recovered in respect of the petitioner and she has not opted for pension fund membership. Her provident fund account stand finally settled during 1996-97 and she ceased as a member under the EPF scheme 1952. Since she did not avail the opportunities for joining the scheme till cessation of her membership her present case is of no help to her. Ext.D3 would go to show that they had not deducted the alleged contributions from the complainant while she was in employment. It follows that the 1st opposite party has rightly rejected her pension application and there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party and the complaint is only to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without costs.
Dated this the 2nd day of March 2016.
G.VASANTHAKUMARI:Sd/-
ADV.RAVISUSHA: Sd/-
ADV.M.PRAVEENKUMAR: Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
(5)
I N D E X
PW.1:-Suseela
DW.1:-Sathya Nanatt
Ext.P.1:-E.S.I. card
Ext.P.2:-Photocopy pension book
Ext.P.3:-Form 10 D with other documents (series), (Ext.P.3(1) Rejection letter
Ext.P.4:-Pension payment order of other persons
Ext.P.5:-Rejection letter of pension No.394
Ext.P.6:-Option form
Ext.D.1:-Report dated
Ext.D.2:-True copies of PF ledger register for a period, 95-96, 96-97 duly attested by the
employer along with Form .No.9
Ext.D.3:-Copy of letter of employer
