IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.140/08 (Filed on 22.09.2008) Between: Pappachan, Vayalikkarottu Veedu, Elangamangalam, Enathu.P.O., Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. C. Pradeep Kumar) ..... Complainant And: 1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.P.A. Thomas) 2. Manager, Sastha Enterprises, Enathu, Pathanamthitta. Addl.3. Preetha Pramod, Manager, Sastha Enterprises, Head Office, Beach Road, Kollam. ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The fact of the complaint is as follows: The complainant was an employ of the 2nd opposite parties Cashew Factory from 1994 in the rosting section. He was also enrolled in Provident Fund as per KR/1230/3954 number. On 31.5.05 he attained 58 years and retired from the factory. After retirement the complainant applied for the pensionary benefit from 1st opposite party. But the 1st opposite party rejected the application on the ground that he had not completed the minimum 10 years service in his employment. On enquiry it was came to know that the 2nd opposite party employer has remitted the P.F. instalments from March 1998 onwards only. The P.F contribution was already cut from the salary of the complainant from 1994 onwards but the 2nd opposite party has not remit the amount with 1st opposite party. Then a complaint was filed before the 1st opposite party through the Union Leader Ezhukon Sathyan. The matter was come before the adalath conducted by the 1st opposite party. The adalath was decided to direct the 2nd opposite party to remit the P.F contribution of the complainant from 1994 onwards. As per the decision, 3rd opposite party remitted 36 monthly remittance of contribution of P.F. `5,000 with interest in the complainant’s account and also submitted the annual returns, revival Form No.5 with the 1st opposite party. After complying these proceedings complainant applied for pensionary benefits again. But it was also denied by the same reason as the complainant has not been completed the minimum service of 10 years in his employment. The non-payment of the pensionary benefit to the complainant by 1st opposite party is a deficiency in service and which caused mental agony, financial loss etc. to the complainant. Hence he filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the 1st opposite party to give pensionary benefits along with compensation and cost. The complainant prays for granting the relief. 3. The 1st and 3rd opposite party filed version, while the 2nd opposite party set exparte. 1st opposite party filed the version stating the following contention. The complainant was an employee of 2nd opposite party and he was enrolled in Employees P.F. Organization on March 1998 and allotted the Code No.KR/1230/3934. The 1st opposite party is unaware of the statement that the complainant was joined with Sastha Enterprises in the year 1994. As per the statutory returns filed by the 2nd opposite party, the date of birth of the complainant is shown as 1947 on 1.3.98. The complainant attained the age of 58 on 1.7.05 and left service on 31.12.05. Thus the complainant completed only 8 years of eligible service for the purpose of pension benefit. The minimum eligible service required for the pension benefit is 10 years. The 1st opposite party has not received any P.F. contribution from the complainant or from the 2nd opposite party for the period 1994 to 1996. 4. On 24.3.07, 2 years after the complainant left service the 2nd opposite party submitted a revised Form 5 showing that the complainant joined in service in the year 1994. But it was not accepted as the same was submitted belatedly and also the P.F. contribution for the break in service period was not remitted. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get pension benefit. In the circumstances, the 1st opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. The 3rd opposite party has filed a version stating the following: The 3rd opposite party has admitted that they have not remitted the P.F. contribution of the complainant from 1994 to 1997. On 22.8.06 the 1st opposite party had issued a notice about this subject matter and as per the notice a break-in-service certificate submitted before the 1st opposite party. And also remitted the P.F contribution of 36 months ` 5,000 with interest. The monthly remittance, Annual returns, Revival Form No.5 etc. were also submitted. The 3rd opposite party complied all the directions given by the 1st opposite party as per the notice. 6. The point to be considered in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the pensionary benefits from 1st opposite party and other relieves as prayed for in the complaint? 7. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and Exts.A1 to A5. For the opposite parties, 1st opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of 3rd opposite party. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 8. The complainant’s case is that he was joined in the 2nd opposite party’s factory in the year 1994 and after 11 years he retired from his service. After the retirement the 1st opposite party denied the pensionary benefit of the complainant, as he has not completed the minimum 10 years of eligible service for pension at the age of 58 years. On enquiry it was learnt that the 2nd opposite party has not remit the P.F contribution of the complainant from 1994 with 1st opposite party. Hence a complaint filed before the 1st opposite party and as per the direction of 1st opposite party, 2nd opposite party submitted break-in-service certificate, and remitted the P.F. contribution with interest from 1994. Monthly returns and other relevant documents were also submitted before the 1st opposite party. Even after all these formalities complied the pensionary benefit of the complainant was rejected by the 1st opposite party. Hence he filed this complaint for getting the relief as sought for in the complaint. 9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 marked. Ext.A1 is the letter issued by the Provident Fund Commissioner to the 2nd opposite party dated 22.8.06. Ext.A2 is the letter issued by the 1st opposite party on 2.4.07 to the complainant stating that he is entitled for withdrawal benefit only. Ext.A3 series is the Quadruple of chalan for the remittance of P.F contribution of the complainant by 2nd opposite party. Ext.A4 is the identity card in the name of the complainant issued by the ESI Corporation. The 1st opposite party’s counsel has been cross-examined PW1. 10. One witness for the complainant has examined as PW2 and Ext.A5 marked through him. Ext.A5 is the letter issued by 1st opposite party on 23.7.99 to PW2. 11. The 1st opposite party contended that a member of the provident fund has to complete a minimum period of 10 years service at the age of 58 years to become eligible for pension. The complainant is not completed minimum 10 years service hence he is not eligible for the pensionary benefits. 12. In order to prove the contentions of this opposite party, 1st opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 were marked. Ext.B1 is the Form No.9 produced by the opposite party for proving the age of the complainant. Ext.B2 is the Form No.5 submitted by the 2nd opposite party before the 1st opposite party. Ext.B3 is the break-in-service submitted by the 2nd opposite party before 1st opposite party. The complainant’s counsel cross-examined DW1. 13. According to the 3rd opposite party they have complied all the directions given by the 1st opposite party as per the notice given by them. 14. On going through the evidences in this case, the materials on record shows that the complainant was an employee of the 2nd opposite party’s Cashew Factory. The main dispute is regarding the date of joining of the complainant with 2nd opposite party’s factory and the date of enrollment of the P.F. organization. On a perusal of Ext.A4 identity card issued by ESI Corporation the date of entry shows that 25.10.94 and the date of birth is in the year 1947. All the dispute arising out the non-remittance of P.F. contribution of the complainant from 1994 and other omissions from the part of 2nd opposite party. All these disputes are settled in the adalath under the mediation of PW2. Based on the adalath decision the 3rd opposite party submitted a break-in-service certificate, annual remittance, revival form No.5 etc. before the 1st opposite party. And also remitted the P.F. contribution dues of 36 monthly instalments in the complainant’s P.F. account. Ext.A3 series proves the remittance of P.F. contribution by 2nd opposite party. From the evidence it can be seen that the 3rd opposite party complied all the directions based on the adalath decision as per Ext.A1 notice. Ext.A1 is the (directions) notice issued by the 1st opposite party based on the adalath decision. 15. According to the 1st opposite party they are not received any P.F. contribution of the complainant from 2nd opposite party for the period 1994 to 1996. Further a member has to complete a minimum period of 10 years qualifying service at the age of 58 years to become eligible for pension. But the complainant has not completed 10 years service. The complainant enrolled in P.F. organization on March 1988 at the age of 51 years and left service on 31.12.05. 16. Ext.B3 the break-in-service certificate shows the year of joining on 1994 and Ext.A4 identity card shows the date of entry on 25.10.94. Both these documents clearly proved the complainant had joined the service in the year 1994. These two documents are not disputed by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party admitted that the Ext.B3 and Form 5 are submitted by the 2nd opposite party before them at the time of P.F settlement. In Ext.B3 and Form 5 the date of birth shows 1994 and the date of joining the Fund is 4/1994. These documents clearly prove that the complainant joined in the 2nd opposite party’s factory in the year 1994. Ext.A3 series chalans 1 to 36 proves that the 3rd opposite party had remitted the P.F contribution in the complainant’s account KR/1230/3945 from 1/94 to 2/97 on 11.1.07 as directed by the 1st opposite party through Ext.A1 notice. The triplicate of chalan should be sent to the 1st opposite party from the bank where the amount was remitted. And the amount was transferred to the complainant’s account and now it is with the 1st opposite party. From the available evidence we can see that all the directions based on adalath decision (Ext.A1 notice) were complied by the 2nd opposite party. There was an irregularity in the remittance of P.F. contribution of the complainant by 2nd opposite party, but it was cured by the 3rd opposite party by carrying out subsequent monthly remittance. The documents shows that the complainant is having more than 10 years satisfied service with the 2nd opposite party for getting pensionary benefits as per Provident Fund Rules . From the above-discussion and materials on records we came to a conclusion that the complainant is eligible for getting the pensionary benefits from P.F organization. In the circumstances, we find that there is a clear negligence and laches from the part of 1st opposite party for processing the complainant’s claim for getting pension as per P.F. Rules. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get pension from 1st opposite party from the date of retirement with interest and future pension. Since the interest of the pension amount is allowed no compensation is required. All the disputes non-remittance of P.F. contribution as well as other omissions are made by the 2nd opposite party. So the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay the cost to the complainant. Hence the complaint can be allowed. 17. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby, the 1st opposite party is directed to pay the pensionary benefits as per the P.F. Rules to the complainant from the date of his retirement and also directed to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the pension arrears till this date. The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay a cost of ` 3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant. The order will be complied by the opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest of the above said amounts will follow at the rate of 9% from today. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of November, 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Pappachan PW2 : Ezhkon Sathyan Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Copy to letter dated 22.8.06 issued by the Provident Fund Commissioner to the 2nd opposite party. A2 : Letter dated 2.4.07 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. A3 series : Quadruplicate of chalan (36 Nos.). A4 : Photocopy of the Identity card in the name of the complainant issued by ESI Corporation. A5 : Letter dated 23.7.99 issued by 1st opposite party to PW2. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Varghese. K. Daniel Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Photocopy of Form No.9 produced by the 1st opposite party for proving the age of the complainant. B2 : Photocopy of Form No.5 submitted by the 2nd opposite party to the 1st opposite party. B3 : Photocopy of break-in-service submitted by the 2nd opposite party to the 1st opposite party. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Pappachan, Vayalikkarottu Veedu, Elangamangalam, Enathu.P.O., Pathanamthitta. (2) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) Manager, Sastha Enterprises, Enathu, Pathanamthitta. (4) Preetha Pramod, Manager, Sastha Enterprises, Head Office, Beach Road, Kollam. (5) The Stock File. | 
