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 in the 1^st Opposite Party's estate as a temporary worker during the period 1977 to 1988 and afterwards till 1997 worked as a permanent worker. The P.F. Contribution had been collected from salary of the Complainant by the 1^st Opposite Party. On 31.3.1997 the Complainant resigned from service as a worker in the estate. The request of the Complainant for Family Pension Scheme 1995 was rejected by the 2^nd Opposite Party on 14.07.2009. The reason for the denial of pension scheme as pointed out by the 2^nd Opposite Party is that there was break during the period of service and no provident fund contribution was remitted for the period 1983 to 1984 and more over the Complainant had no eligible service for pension. There was no breakage in service of the Complainant as his own instead there was no effective work in the factory in connection with the renovation work for which the complaint is not liable. The Complainant is not to be vengeanced upon for any default of the 1^st Opposite Party. Till retirement of the Complainant the service rendered was continuous. The Complainant was in turn became a member of employee's provident fund in family pension scheme. The rejection of the application of the Complainant is resulted by the wrong information given by the 1^st Opposite Party to the 2^nd Opposite Party.

2. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties:-

1. To avail pension benefit guaranteed by the Family Pension Scheme 1995.

2. To pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with cost.

3. The 1^st Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The 1^st Opposite Party admitted the service of the Complainant as regular employee from 1998. The Complainant had been a member of Employee's Provident Fund Scheme till his resignation. The withdrawal benefits including Employees Family Pension Scheme was given to the Complainant by the 2^nd Opposite Party on 24.06.1997. An employee is entitled for family pension scheme if the service is at least completed 10 years and contributed to the provident fund. In the instant case the Complainant had not opted for the benefits of employees Pension Scheme 1995. The Complainant left service on 31.07.1994 and was not eligible for Employees Pension Scheme 1995.

4. According to the 2^nd Opposite Party an employee who had not opted for withdrawal benefits after settling his claim is not entitled for employees pension scheme. In 2009 after withdrawal of the entire benefits under employees provident fund scheme, the Complainant submitted an application in form 10 D to 1^st Opposite Party and it was also forwarded to the 2^nd Opposite Party for consideration. This Opposite Party whereas in turn rejected the application on the ground that the claim was already settled and once if settled it cannot be reopened and more over no provident fund contribution was received from the complainant in 1983 - 1984 and there was a breakage in service for a period of 10 years. The denial of the employees pension scheme by the 2^nd Opposite Party is in no way alleged to be a deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The allegation of the Complainant that the 1^st Opposite Party received signatures in different papers and it was mis-utilized that resulted the rejection of pension benefits, is absolutely incorrect. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to this Opposite Party.

5. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version in brief it is as follows:- The complaint itself is highly time barred the Complainant had withdrawn provident fund contribution on 24.06.1997 and the withdrawal benefits in settlement were sanctioned on 24.06.1997 on application as a settlement of the provident fund account. Rs. 3,347/- was given to the Complainant as a settlement of the provident fund account and Rs.1,686/- was received as a settlement of Family  Pension Benefits. A member of provident fund is eligible for pension if he has a continuous service of 10 years with contribution. There is no case for the Complainant that he had a contributory service of 10 years which make eligible the Complainant for pension. On 31.07.1994 the Complainant left service on 01.11.1979 the Complainant became a member of employ provident fund scheme. The Complainant left service prior to the date of commencement of employees pension scheme 95 on 16.11.1995 that was on 31.07.1994. It is admitted that the Complainant was a member of employees family pension scheme 1971 which guarantees only family pension when the member dies while in service. The Complainant forwarded form 10 C application for withdrawal of the family pension scheme and availed so. The complaint in this case had sufficient time to opt for the scheme certificate or withdrawal benefits for the past service under option of employees pension scheme 1995. Whereas the Complainant opted for the withdrawal benefit instead of opting employees provident fund scheme 1995 and the scheme certificate. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

6. The points in consideration are:-

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

2. Relief and costs.

7. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case is the proof affidavit of the Complainant Ext.A1 series is the documents produced. The Opposite Parties tendered no oral evidence.

8. The allegation of the Complainant is that the request of the Complainant for Employees Pension Scheme (hereafter referred EPS 95) is not considered by the Opposite Parties. The 1^st Opposite Party is the employer the 2^nd Opposite Party is the provident fund organisation. On perusal of the document, the Complainant had applied for provident fund withdrawal and it was forwarded to the 2^nd Opposite Party. EPS 1995 requires continuous service of 10 years and the employer has to contribute to the scheme. In this case the Complainant had not opted for the scheme for pension under EPS 1995. The withdrawal benefits were received by the Complainant and settled the claim on 24.06.1997. The membership of the employee admitted to be in break and the Complainant cannot claim the service eligible for pension.

9. According to the provisions of the EPS 1995 the member who has not completed 10 years of service can accepts scheme certificate so as to enable him for pension. The family membership pension come in to force only after the death of the employee.

10. In the instant case the plea of the Complainant is actually for EPS 95. The Complainant has not produced sufficient documents to establish his case that he is having eligible service of 10 years necessary for employees pension. The rejection of the request of the Complainant for employees pension cannot be considered as a deficit in service and the point No.1 is found accordingly, the detail discussion of the point No.2 is not necessary in this juncture.

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

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st December 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Abdu. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1 series. Documents.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.