By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
 

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant has been a permanent worker in the establishment run by the 1^st Opposite Party in during the period 01.04.1981 to 1982. The contribution of the Complainant for Provident Fund was collected and the wages were given to the Complainant deducting the Provident Fund contribution by the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party the proprietor of the plantation relieved the Complainant from service on superannuation. The efforts of the Complainant to get the pension benefits reached no where else. The Complainant time and again approached the 1^st Opposite Party with the request for the issuance of the retirement benefits. The 2^nd Opposite Party received the contribution of the Complainant for the purpose of pension. The Complainant spent a considerable amount towards the expense for contacting the Opposite Party and giving applications one after the other. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties:-

(a) To issue the retirement benefits.

(b) To give monthly pension along with cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The Opposite Parties filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party is as follows:- The 1^st Opposite Party was only a partner in Gokul Plantation which was dissolved in 1982. The Complainant continued to be a worker in the concern of this Opposite Party after the dissolution of the firm. After 1982 there were only 4 workers who worked in the plantation of this Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party was not entitled to deduct the contribution of the Complainant for Provident Fund. Since the strength of the workers were not sufficient for the scheme. While the matters are so on the 2^nd Opposite Party filed cases against the 1^st Opposite Party in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta alleging that this Opposite Party was not acting under the provisions of the P.F scheme. Altogether there were 94 cases STC 1345/90 to STC 1366/90 22 cases, STC 1372/90 to STC 1400/90 29 cases, STC 1401/90 to STC 1444/90 43 cases. In all cases the 1^st Opposite Party was acquitted on the ground that the establishment of the 1^st Opposite Party does not come under the purview of contributing Provident Fund. The 1^st Opposite Party has no objection if the 2^nd Opposite Party is legally bound to pay the pension to the Complainant. More over the retirement benefits which are eligible for the Complainant were paid after the retirements. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.

3. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version and it is in short as follows:- The Complainant joined the membership on 01.01.1981 in the establishment M/S Gokul plantation ceased to exists w.e.f 01.04.1982 being partitioned. The partition unit of the 1^st Opposite Party did not act according to the provisions of the act which was under the pretext of minimum employment strength. The legal actions were initiated against the 1^st Opposite Party and in all cases, the 1^st Opposite Party the Proprietor of the establishment was acquitted on the reasons that the strength sufficient for attracting the provisions of the act is less than 20 employees. The Provident Fund contributions and returns received from the Complainant only up to the period of partition that was on 31.03.1982. The service of the Complainant ceased to exists on 01.04.1982 and the letter date 30.9.1997 from 1^st Opposite Party was also sent to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Complainant had no contributory service of 10 years eligible for pension benefits. As per para 12 of the employees pension scheme 1995. In the light of the above discussion the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to this Opposite Party.

4. The points in consideration are :-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party. The documents Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts.B1 to B7 are

considered in this case. The oral testimony of the Complainant and one witness and the 1^st Opposite Party are also taken into consideration.

6. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is entitled for pension payments and other retirement benefits which were not received by the Complainant. The establishment of the 1^st Opposite Party was dissolved in 1982 and it was on 01.04.1982 onwards. The Complainant was in the permanent employment in the establishment of the 1^st Opposite Party. It is admitted that the plantation in the proprietorship of the 1^st Opposite Party there were only 4 workers. The contribution of the proprietor for Provident Fund was not contributed by the 1^st Opposite Party which lead to the charging of offense. The contention of the 1^st Opposite Party is that after the dissolution of the partnership in 1982. The Complainant continued the employment with effect from 01.04.1982. In the partition unit of the 1^st Opposite Party up to this time, the Provident Fund share of the employer was remitted. The share contribution of the employer does not come for a period of 10 years. The membership of the Complainant ceased to exists from 1982 onwards. The documents produced by the 1^st Opposite Party also shows that the Complainant received the gratuity for a period of 6 ½ months in the year 1994. The Complainant left the service on superannuation in 1993 and the gratuity received was Rs.6,932/-. The notice pay for 126 days Rs.924/- was also paid as seen in the documents produced. The Complainant continued the service till 1993. The eligibility for pension payment requires 10 years service. In effect the Complainant was in continuity of service in the establishment of the 1^st Opposite Party from 1981 to 1993. But the membership of the Provident Fund ceased to exists in 1982 when the establishment in partnership was dissolved. In the light of the finding above we are in the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the points are decided accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th April 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Pathumma Complainant.

PW2. C. Mohammed.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. C. Prabhakaran. Agriculture.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Notice. dt:01.04.1982.

A2. Superannuation Notice. dt:16.03.1993.

A3. The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952

Subscriber's Annual Statement of Accounts.

A4. The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952

Subscriber's Annual Statement of Account.

A5. Copy of Letter.

A6. Copy of Pass Book.

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

B1. Receipt. dt:21.02.2004.

B2. Weekly Cash Receipt & Expenditure Statement 21.2.2004.

B3. Judgment dt:12.3.1991.

B4. Copy of Letter. dt:29.5.1982.

B5 series. Copy of complaint.