DATED THE 31st JANUARY, 2017
O R D E R
JUSTICE R.N.BISWAL, PRESIDENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.9.2014 passed by the District Forum, Rayagada in C.C.no. 291 of 2013 directing the appellant to act as per EPF & MP Act, 1952 and immediately open EPF account of respondent no. 1 and directing respondent no. 3 to visit the establishment of appellant and respondent no. 2 and to take necessary steps to open the EPF account of respondent no.1 and further directing them to pay Rs.10,000/- to respondent no. 1 unless the said orders are complied within four weeks of receipt of the order.
Appellant was opposite party no. 2, respondent no. 1 was complainant and respondent nos. 2 and 3 were opposite party nos. 1 and 3 respectively before the District Forum.
Complainant filed the aforesaid case stating that he is an employee of Gunupur College, Gunupur covered under the protection of EPF and MP Act, 1952. Appellant enrolled him under the EPF Scheme and used to deposit his (complainant) share in the Fund deducting the same from his salary. The Govt. sanctioned Block Grant to respondent no. 1 in the year 2009. But the said amount was not paid to him on the pretext that the EPF amount contributed to the Fund was adjusted from the Block Grant. His further case was that he was not provided with EPF number either by the appellant or by respondent no. 3. Hence, the case with prayer to direct the appellant and respondent nos. 2 and 3 to pay the Block Grant from 2/2009 to 12/2010 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and compensation and litigation expenses.
On being noticed, appellant and respondent no.2 entered appearance before the District Forum and filed version stating that respondent no. 1 was appointed as Lecturer in Physics temporarily on adhoc basis for a period of 89 days on consolidated payment of remuneration vide office order no. 1368 dated 27.8.1994 till 2.2.2010. and the appointment of the complainant was approved by the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswr vide office order no. 5324 dated 9.2.2011 for payment of full block grant w.e.f. 1.2.2009. It was further stated in the written version that no amount was deducted from the salary of respondent no.1 under the Scheme and they did not withhold the Block Grant amount of respondent no.1 and that no EPF Scheme has been introduced in respect of Gunupur College.
Respondent no. 3 on being noticed appeared before the District Forum and filed written version stating that the establishment of Gunupur College was covered under the EPF & MP Act, 1952 w.e.f., 6.3.1982, but neither the statutory returns nor any deposit was made by appellant and respondent no.2. As such, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
After hearing the parties, the District Forum passed the aforesaid order, being aggrieved with which the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 1, who appears in person.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no. 1 is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. He further submits that the College is exempted from the EPOF fold as per Section 16(1) (b) of EPF & MP Act, 1952. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vrs. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and others. AIR 2007 (SC) 276. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
Section 16(1)(b) of the EPF Act, 1952 provides as under :-
“16(1) This Act shall not apply –
- .........................................
- To any other establishment belonging to or under the control of the Central Government or a State Government and whose employees are entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government governing such benefits;”
Gunupur College being a recognised aided College is under the control of State Govt.. Moreover, the employees of the appellant are getting pension as per Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981. So as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Gunupur College is exempted from the EPF fold.
Moreover, respondent no.1 filed the Consumer Complaint with prayer to direct the appellant and respondent nos. 2 to pay him the Block Grant from February, 2009 to February, 2011. Admittedly, respondent no.1 is working as a lecturer under appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 by rendering service to them and not vice versa. So, respondent no.1 cannot be a consumer qua the appellant and respondent no.2.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No cost.
Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.
