Karnataka

StateCommission

RA/160/2023

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI. M. ABUBAKKAR - Opp.Party(s)

M R SHALAMALA

25 Jan 2024

ORDER

                                                                       Date of Filing:05.12.2023           Date of Disposal:25.01.2024

 

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

 

DATED:25.01.2024

 

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER

 

 

REVIEW APPLICATION No.160/2023

 

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Regional Office:

Silva Road, Highlands

Mangaluru - 575 001

(By Mrs M R Shalamala, Advocate)                                   Petitioner

 

-Versus-

 

Mr M Abubakkar

S/o Mr Idinabba

Major

Occupation:Retired Employee

R/at No.14-9-15 ‘B’ Mudda

Thalipadu House,

B C Road, Jodu Marga,

Bantwal Taluk

D K District – 574 219                                                      Respondent

 

O R D E R

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

01.     This Review Application is filed under Section 50 of CP Act 2019 to review the Order passed by this Commission in Appeal No.650/2015 dated 23.06.2023.

02.     Considering the nature of the case, issuance of Notice for appearance to the Respondent is dispensed with, to avoid further delay.

03.     This Commission examined the Order dated 23.06.2023, grounds for the Review Application and heard the learned Counsel on IA filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

04.     On perusal of affidavit filed in support of IA, it is seen that one Mr A P Unni-krishnan Nair, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, has sworn in his Affidavit, stating that copy of the order was not available to the Appellant immediately after disposal and further, even after obtaining the copy, some delay was caused in seeking Legal opinion and also permission from higher authorities, as the Appellant is a Central Government undertaking.  In the process, some delay has occurred and the procedure of seeking approval for filing Review is cumbersome.  The said reason is bonafide and not intentional. In such circumstances, there was a delay of 100 days which has to be condoned.  Further he stated that Respondent/Complainant has not fulfilled both the conditions for the eligibility for grant of weightage under Para 10(2) of EPS scheme.   The Petitioner has got case on merits, if the delay is condoned.

05.     On perusal of the Order Sheet, it is observed that the Office has pointed out that there is a delay of 135 days in preferring the Petition.

06.     Section 50 of CP Act 2019, provides for to review any of the Order passed by the Commission, if there is an error apparent on the face of the record either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties, within 30 days of such order.  The reasons stated for condoning the delay of 135 days in preferring the Petition.  At the time of seeking condonation of delay, it is for the Petitioner to explain as to how they were prevented from not filing the Review Petition in time.  The delay of 135 days in preferring the Petition is an enormous one. The reason assigned in the Affidavit filed in support of Delay Condonation Application is purely routine & administrative in nature.  Time & again it has been held that Administrative delay & Administrative lapses cannot be termed as sufficient reasons for not preferring the Review Petition in time.  For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner could not convincingly establish the cause for delay in filing the present Petition.  Further, the Petitioner now produced documents to prove their case like, PPO and other related documents were not been produced before the District Forum or in Appeal and only after appeal is partly allowed by way of modifying the rate of interest granted by the District Forum at 12% to 8.25%, which obviously tend to point out the veracity of the very document itself and we are not inclined to accept the same.  It is clear from the Impugned Order of the District Forum at Page No. 26 that, the Complainant had retired on Superannuation and had put in eligible service of 20 years & more and therefore, there is no scope to review the Order of this Commission in Appeal No.650/2015 dated 23.06.2023. Hence, we proceed to dismiss the Review Application, with no order as to costs.

7.       Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

 

 Lady Member                   Judicial Member                       President

*s