Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2471/2022

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Raveendranath Nayak, - Opp.Party(s)

Shalamala

06 Mar 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing:19.12.2022

Date of Disposal:06.03.2024

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:06.03.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K BSANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.2471/2022

 

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Regional Office, Udupi

Tulunadu Towers

Court Road

Udupi-576 101                                                                   Appellant                                                                                           Appellant

(By Mrs M R Shalamala, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

1. Dr Raveendranath Nayak

    S/o Late P Narayana Nayak

    Aged about 59 years

    Residing at ‘Muddukrishna’

    Ittigemane, Shri Mahalingeshwara

    Temple Road

    Marpalli -574 118

    (By Mr. Sumanth M.S Advocate)

 

2. The Registrar

    Manipal Academy of Higher Education

    MAHE, Madhavanagar

    Manipal-576 104                                                            Respondents

    (By Mr. Manmohan P.N. Advocate)

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the OP1, aggrieved by the Order dated 15.10.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.51/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission).

2.       Heard the arguments of learned Counsels on record.  Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and documents on record.

3.       The District Commission after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed OP1 to pay Monthly Pensionsary benefit as per Employee Pension Scheme 1995 within 30 days after receipt of proper application and requisite documents from the Complainant and pay arrears from the due date. Further directed OP1 to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses to the Complainant.  District Commission Dismissed the Compliant as against OP2.

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP1/The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is in Appeal, inter-alia contending amongst other grounds that, the letter dated 21.02.2017 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is in reply to a letter from the Employer.  The Employer or the Compliant has shown the original letter, to which this is the reply.  The letter is not even relates to present complainant and it is some other name Ms K Chatziangelidou is mentioned and Complainant has just used the contents of the letter without showing the background of the letter.  Further, the Employer was initially not complying in respect of international worker and only during the inspection when it was highlighted to the employer that there is non-compliance was made.  Further contended that the employer was informed that there was no enquiry conducted under Para 26 B for determining whether the complainant was eligible to become a member or not and he should have first raised a dispute regarding membership before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who is competent for resolving doubt in case of dispute of membership. District Commission failed to appreciate the oral and the documentary evidence produced by Appellant in its perspective and thus seeks to set aside impugned order by allowing the Appeal.

 

5.       According to the Respondent 1/Complainant, that on 21.02.2017, the Assistant PF Commissioner / OP No.1 issued a letter to OP2 informing that 8.33% of Employer’s share of PF Contribution, in case of international worker shall be remitted to their pension Fund and EPS contribution to be deducted on full salary of all the International Workers who have joined OP No.2 on or after 01.09.2014. Accordingly, the OP2 remitted PF contribution to the pension fund of the Complainant. After retirement from the service, Complainant submitted 10C application to OP1 who in turn paid a sum of Rs.75,300/- through NEFT to the account of the Complainant maintained with SBI, Udupi and later recovered the amount by the Bank Account of the Complainant and stated that the amount credited to his account is under the wrong interpretation of EPS Scheme, due to which, his Bank Account maintained with SBM, Manipal had become in-operative, not able to make use of ATM Card for day-today transactions and he lost the credibility of MESCOM for non-payment of an Electricity Bill for dishonour of Cheque.  Further alleged that EPFO/OP1 sent e-mail to him with details of Demand Draft amounting to Rs.7,83,686/- dated 05.04.2021, being the alleged refund of the EPS contribution of Complainant and thereafter, OP1 not released the amount. An international worker is a person who can work in an Indian Company, where Employee Provident Fund Rules apply.  Every International worker, other than an excluded employee, should become member of the EPF Fund and there is no minimum period of stay in India for activation of Provident Fund compliance and international worker covered under Social Security Agreement, the worker can withdraw the Provident Fund according to the regulations of that particular SSA.  Further, PF contribution for International Workers to be calculated on total wages, instead of Basic and DA, with effect from 11.09.2010, Pension Fund (8.33%) to be calculated on the total wages, whereas, prior to the amendment, this was calculated on restricted wages (Rs.6,500/-).

 

6.       OP1, in his Version pleaded that, on verification of the document submitted by the Complainant and Form-11 by the Establishment, the Complainant has been enrolled as afresh employee and an international worker, under EPF & MP Act, the schemes framed there under with Date of Joining as 01.01.2015 before that he was not a member of any of the schemes i.e., Employees Provident Funds Scheme 1952 and Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  As per the Gazette Notification GSR 609 (E) dated 22.08.2014 Point No.3, with regard to the employees who are drawing salary of more than Rs 15,000/- per month and have joined the establishment on or after 14 September 2014 are not eligible to join the EPS scheme and cannot become the EPS member, the same is also amended accordingly, in Para 6(a) of EPS Scheme.  Further pleaded that, OP1 neither attached or seized the Bank Account of the Complainant.

 

7.       OP2, in his Version pleaded that as per the letter of OP1 dated 21.02.2017, for remittance of 8.33% of Employer’s share of PF contribution in the case of International Workers and accordingly, remitted PF contribution both to the Pension Fund and Provident Fund on the entire amount of monthly salary earned by the Complainant.  Complainant worked with OP2 since 2015, his last drawn monthly pay was Rs.1,84,052/- and every month contribution amount of Rs.15,332/- was being remitted to OP1.

 

8.       Admittedly, the Complainant worked as Director and Professor in OP2’s Institution from 01.10.2015 and retired during November 2020; prior to joining OP2 Institution, worked in different universities at Australia as Lecturer in Management from 1^st July 2007 to February 2015; he worked about 7 years in Australia.  No doubt, he retired on attaining the age of 58 years by rendering total service of more than 10 years, his PF Account No.KN/USP/8810/22907 and an amount of Rs.15,332/- being Employees contribution was remitted to OP1. It is also an admitted fact that, OP2 remitted 8.33% of contribution of to OP1.  The findings recorded by the District Commission in its Impugned Order that there is no wage ceiling limit to become EPF and EPS member for international worker from the beginning and the notification No.GS609(E) dated 22.08.2014 does not speak about applicability to international worker.  However, District Commission failed to record how much Employer’s and Employee’s contribution remitted during Complainant’s working in different universities at Australia as Lecturer in Management from 1^st July 2007 to February 2015 and when OP2 started the remittance of 8.33% of contribution to OP1.  Further the document listed to the Impugned Order also does not discloses about the salary wages particulars of the Complainant worked in Australia from 1^st July 2007 to February 2015.  On the contrary, the contention of the OP1 that Complainant is not eligible for Monthly Pension, as he has received the contribution amount, in the year 2015 from OP2 and silent in respect of receipt of international worker contribution from 2007 till 2015 as per SSA.  In the circumstances, Impugned Order requires to be interfered with, by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to look into the matter as to what is ‘contribution id’ when the Complainant as International Worker by his previous Managements at Australia from 1^st July 2007 to February 2015 under SSA Agreement to OP1 and whether the Compliant is entitled for Monthly Pensionary benefit as per Employees Pension scheme 1995.  In the result, we proceed to pass the following

 

ORDER

          Appeal is allowed.  Consequently, Order dated 15.10.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.51/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the District Commission to afford an opportunity to both the parties to adduce further, evidence if any and to decide the case afresh in accordance with Law, within three months from the Date of this Order.

 

The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for the needful.

 

 

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

Lady Member                         Judicial Member                    President

*s