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 had been a worker in the 1st Opposite Party estate since 1972 and employed as a permanent labourer from 1979 onwards till the retirements in 1997. The Provident Fund contribution of the Complainant was duly deducted from the wages. After superannuation the Complainant opted for the benefit employees Provident Fund Schemes. The application that to be sent to the 2nd opposite party was not forwarded by the employer. The 1st Opposite Party later asked the Complainant to sign some papers and subsequently some benefits were given to the Complainant. The 1st Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the Complainant will be receiving employees monthly pension by in the following period. The Complainant came to know that her application was not forwarded to the 2nd Opposite Party and the family pension scheme was closed her. There is absolutely a deficiency in service. After 2007 and in the year 2007 also the Complainant had given written application that the withdrawal benefit received are ready to be remitted back and the request for employees pension scheme to be considered. Whereas the 1st and 2nd Opposite Party shut the doors of the benefits to the Complainant. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to get the benefit of the employees pension scheme along with cost.
2. The Opposite Parties filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the 1st Opposite Party is as follows:- Admittedly the Complainant was a worker in the company of the 1st Opposite Party in 1979 and her name was also included in the Provident Fund Scheme. The retirement of the Complainant was in 1993 at her on desire and went to gulf countries. She sought grativity only on 09.08.1996 after laps of years from the date of retirement. The pension benefits of the employees pension scheme came in to effect in only on 16.11.1995. The scheme envisages that if the worker completed 10 years of contributory service it is considered a criteria of eligibility. In the instant case the Complainant left service in 1993 and has not completed 10 years of contributory service. It is the settled position of the scheme that if the refunding of the withdrawal benefits by the Complainant if not so far effected, the deficiency in service cannot be attributed. The Complainant in this case did not opted for schemes certificate or withdrawal benefits. The Complainant opted for withdrawn benefits during the 1997 and she had crossed the age of 58. The requirements which are mandatory in considering the benefits are not applicable in the Complainant's case. The allegation of the Complainant that some papers were signed on compulsion etc. only imaginary assertion complaint is not having any merit it is to be dismissed with cost.
3. The 2nd Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The complaint is highly time barred. The Provident Fund contributions of the Complainant were withdrawn on 21.1.1997 in settlement of benefits under employees family pension scheme 1991 and effected on 14.2.2007 on application of the Complainant. The Complainant was given Rs.12,015/- in settlement of Provident Fund and Rs.2,945/- in settlement of family pension benefits. The pension benefits under employees pension scheme 1995 came in to effect from 16.11.1995 and a worker is entitled for pension if there is contributory service of 10 years. The Complainant in this case has no contribution of 10 years she left service on 02.12.1993. It is admitted that the Complainant was a member in employees family pension scheme 1971 which guarantees the family pension scheme if the member dies in course of service. If member has not opted for employees pension scheme 1995, the deficiency in service cannot be alleged against the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant in the instant case had not opted for withdrawal benefits for the past service though she had sufficient time for the same. The option exercised for withdrawal benefits during 2/1997 is final. More over the Complainant crossed the age of 58 it is also a bar to the Complainant to entertain the scheme benefits. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
4. Points in consideration are:-
Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
Relief and cost.
5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant, Exts. A1 to A3, X1 and B1 are the documents. The oral testimony of the Complainant is also taken in this case.
6. The Complainant's contention is that she had been working in the 1st Opposite Party's estate since 1972 and the contribution from employees family pension was collected and remitted. The retirement of the Complainant was on 31.12.1997. The request for employees pension scheme 95 (hereafter mentioned EPS 95) was not considered by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant was given the service benefit and grativity on her request dated 09.08.1996. The 2nd Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the application in form 10D for EPS 1995 cannot be considered and the Complainant already availed the withdrawal benefits on 14.02.1997. The claim of the Complainant was rejected on several grounds. As an employee in the 1st Opposite Party's estate the Complainant was a member in employees provident fund 1971. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the complainant already availed the withdrawal benefits in 1997 the petition itself is highly time barred. An another aspect is that the scheme came in to force in 1995 and the period afterwards. Those who were in the provident fund scheme 1971 can opt for membership in the scheme EPS 95. The application within the stipulated time are to be given by the desired member and the benefits received are to be remitted back with interest.
7. In the case of this Complainant this aspect are not alone sufficient. Ext.X1 shows requisite for pensionable service it is true that the Complainant had service for 15 years and the contribution from Complainant was to family pension scheme 1971 that ceased to exist when the new scheme was introduced. On perusal of the document it is seen that the Complainant had no contributory service of 10 years under the scheme EPS 1995. The Complainant left service 1993 and the withdrawal benefits were received on her request in 1997. The service rendered by the Complainant come only within the purview of the past service. In Ext.X1 details regarding the withdrawal benefits column 7.3.1 (b) reads as follows:-
'In respect of those who were members of ceased Employee's Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and left service during the period between 01.4.1993 and 15.11.1995 and exercised option to join the Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 and having eligible service of less than 10 years (i.e.less than 9 years and 6 months) their entire period of service is known as Past Service only'.
8. The Complainant had not exercised option to join the employee's pension scheme 1995 having eligible service necessary for considering the Complainant as a member to get monthly pension. In the light of the above findings. The rejection of the 2nd Opposite Party the nomination of the Complainant in monthly pension cannot be considered as a deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st December 2010.
Date of filing:01.02.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Ayishakutty Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1 series (6 sheets) Application for monthly pension.
A2. Letter. dt:14.06.2007.
A3. Notice. dt:24.09.2008.
X1. Relevant portion of the Manual of Accounting Procedure EPS'95 Part III and IV.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
B1. Copy of Application. dt:09.08.96.
