O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Petitioner in IA- 505/2008 is the 1st and 2nd opposite party in original petition. Petitioner in IA 256/10 is the additional 3rd opposite party in original petition. Both opposite parties raised preliminary issue of maintainability of complaint. According to the petitioner complaint itself is not maintainable because, the case of the complaint is that he requested opposite party to imp lead him in 7 A proceedings, under E.P.F Act 1986, conducted by the 1st and 2nd opposite party, and the same was not allowed and that amounts to ‘deficiency in service’. Petitioners submitted that impleadment in a statutory proceedings of a quasi judicial authority is not a consumer dispute. So, petition is to be dismissed in limine -2- Respondent/petitioner argued that in Sonia Bhatia Vs. State of U.P and others (reported in 1981 (2) Sc 585) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “employee” coming under E.P.F Act 1986, as a beneficiary, is a consumer. So, the petition is maintainable. Heard both sides we admit that employee coming under employees provident Fund scheme is a ‘Consumer’. Here the moot question is whether non-impleadment of the petitioner in 7 A proceeding under the E.PF Act 1986 is an act of deficiency. Defiantly, officer who conducted enquiry under section 7A of E.P.F & M.P Act 1952 is doing a quasi-judicial function . Fora concerned is also quasi-judicial authority. Fora cannot interfere with the proceedings of another authority doing statutory judicial function. In Sonia Bhatia Vs. State of U.P Hon’ble Supreme Court Stated that if the provident fund to an employee is delayed or not disbursed then opposite party can be held liable for deficiency in service. Here there is no allegation against opposite party that they have either delayed or not disbursed the payment of prudent fund or pension etc. to its members like petitioner. So, we find that proceeding under section 7A is a statutory judicial proceedings and this Fora has no jurisdiction to interfere with the non-impleadment of the petitioner. Hence, the petition is allowed and we find that original petition is not maintainable. Both petitions are disposed accordingly. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan Nair, Member Sd/- By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
