Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/653/2012

THE PRESIDENT, TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., - Complainant(s)

Versus

P. SIDDAIAN - Opp.Party(s)

K. RAVI KUMAR

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                                          Present: Thiru J. Jayaram,                                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                        Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                                     MEMBER

F.A. No. 653 / 2012

                                   (Against the Order in C.C. No. 39 / 2010, dated 24-03-2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Salem)

Dated this the 17^th day of AUGUST, 2015

  The President,                                    ]

Tamilnadu State Transport                  ]

Corporation Ltd, (PF Trust),                ]

No.12, Ramakrishna Road,                 ]

Salem                                                ]  ..  Appellant / Opposite Party

 

                   Vs.

 

Mr. P. Siddaian,                                  ]

S/o Perumal Goundar,                        ]

No.2/69, Thimmanaickenpatty, ]

Rasipuram,                                         ]

Namakkal District                               ]  .. Respondent / Complainant

    

                 This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 21-07-2015 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Appellant:     -        Mr. K. Ravikumar

Counsel for Respondent:  -        Mr. K.V. Shanmuganathan

J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Salem in C.C. No.39 / 2010, dated 24-03-2011, allowing the complaint.

                      The case of the complainant is that he served as a Conductor from 01-05-1979 in the Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporation as a permanent employee and he retired voluntarily on 31-01-2003. He contributed towards Provident Fund Scheme when he was in service with the opposite party and the opposite party also contributed their share towards provident fund amount. After retirement, the provident fund amount was settled by the opposite party as per the calculations, but a sum of Rs.25,003/- is yet to be paid by the opposite party. Further, he was not granted pension. Though he is entitled to pension since he has put in 24 years of service and voluntarily retired on completion of 50.years of age, hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. One Lac towards loss caused by the opposite party for not granting pension; and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony; and to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards deficiency in service; and to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-, and to pay the arrear of pension from the date of retirement and to pay pension every month.   

2.       According to the opposite party, he was not entitled to pension since he has not completed the qualifying service of 20 years and further the issue is already decided by the Controller of Labour, Salem, and Joint Director, and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.       It is pertinent to note that an employee would be permitted to retire voluntarily on completion of 50 years of age, and on completion of 20 years of qualifying service; and we have to note that the complainant / appellant has been permitted to retire voluntarily, and therefore, we have to infer that the complainant has completed 20 years of qualifying service, and therefore the contention of the respondent / opposite party that the complainant has not completed 20 years of qualifying service is untenable which cannot be accepted.

4.       The further contention of the appellant would be that the issue is already decided by the Labour Department. It is seen from Ex.A5 which is the order of the Controller of Labour, the opposite party has not produced any evidence to substantiate that he was on leave  on loss of pay and therefore in the absence of evidence that he was on leave on loss of pay without producing medical certificate, the contention of the opposite party in this regard is unsustainable.

5.       Therefore, we hold that denial of pension and other benefits to the complainant as an employee and who has voluntarily retired from service amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

6.       The District Forum has come to the right conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in denying regular pension along with other benefits.

7.       The District Forum has passed an order directing the opposite party to calculate the pension as per rules and to pay the arrears of pension to the complainant from the date of retirement and also to pay regular pension every month; and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss and mental agony; and to pay costs of Rs.3,000/-.

8.       We feel that the award of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, and so the order of the District Forum has to be modified accordingly. Otherwise, there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

9.       In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum by setting aside the award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation, towards loss and mental agony, and confirming the rest of the order. No order as to costs in the appeal.

10.     Time for compliance: Two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and in case of default, the amounts shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till compliance.

 

P. BAKIYAVATHI                                 J. JAYARAM          

MEMBER                                  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER