Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent filed a complaint alleging that he was working as a driver under the petitioner.  He retired from service on superannuation in June 2002.  During his service, he was a member of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF).  That under the relevant rules, the petitioner was required to deposit his share of CPF, which it did not do.  Alleging that non-payment of CPF dues and other retirement benefits amounts to deficiency in service, complaint was filed.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 25.4.2003, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to the complainant his legitimate dues including CPF amount of Rs.10,000/- together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.  Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that the petitioner was asked to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.60,000/- towards arrears of salary as well as CPF.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          The State Commission, in its order, has recorded as under :

“Shri Mishra has fairly stated in his memo filed today that the respondent’s arrear leave salary amounting to rupees 23,652/- as well as the employer’s C.P.F. share amounting to rupees 27,933/- (total rupees 51,585/-) have not yet been paid.  He says that because of the precarious financial condition of the O.S.R.T.C. the amount could not be paid.  No doubt the O.S.R.T.C. is passing through financial constraint but a driver who had retired in June, 2002 should not be deprived of his legitimate dues.  After retirement he must be undergoing through lot of difficulties and we cannot shut our eyes to his plight.  For non-payment of his legitimate dues for about six years, he is entitled to receive interest on the principal amount as well as compensation.”

          Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already complied with the directions issued by the State Commission and the respondent has been paid the amount, which has been awarded by the State Commission.  Counsel for the petitioner states that, to that extent, the order of the State Commission may not be interfered with but he strenuously contends that the petitioner was not required to make contribution towards the CPF unlike General Provident Fund (GPF).  For this, he relies upon a decision of this Commission in Smt.Sheela Mookherjee vs. Kashi Vidyapeeth & Ors. – 1986-2004 CONSUMER 7996 (NS), wherein it has been held that, since employer is not required to make contribution towards the CPF.  Contends that the State Commission has erred in directing the petitioner to pay its contribution towards the CPF.  We need not go into this question at this stage, as the petitioner has already paid the amount to the respondent.  The question of law is left open.

          With this observation, the Revision Petition stands disposed of leaving the question of law open.

          Fora below, in future, shall decide the point regarding contribution to CPF by the employer without being influenced by the order under appeal.