KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.474/09 JUDGMENT DATED 22.2.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER Thankappan, Kadamchira Puthen Veedu, Ayathil P.O, Kollam. -- APPELLANT (By Adv.Dinesh Sajan) Vs. 1. The Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner Regional Provident Fund Commission, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Manager, -- RESPONDENTS Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. Factory No.32, Kanjagad, Polayathode, Kollam. (R1 BY Adv.K.Ramachandran Nair & R2 by Adv.Vanchiyoor K.Sivasakaran Nair) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.109/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint has been dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is a cashew worker and retired from service on attaining 30 years service on superannuation on 1.1.02. He was working under the second opposite party, a public sector undertaking. According to him he is a member of the Provident Fund organization from1.10.74. The second opposite party used deduct to the contribution. He became a member of EPS in 1995. The complainant was allowed only Rs.325/- for his service of 30 years. The complainant has sought for full pension. 3. The first opposite party/Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner has filed version contenting that on scrutinizing it was found that there was non- contributory period of 17 years 7 months and 14 days in his service. The above period can be regularized only by remitting the contribution with interest vide Para 9 (b) of EPS 1995. It is contended that the complainant’s past service is only 7 years and pensionable service is 5 years. The monthly pension eligible is Rs.325/- after deduction of Rs.108/- towards commutation surrender. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 Exts.P1 and D1 to D5. 5. Ext.D1 is the record of the Service of the complainant as per which it can be seen that he has worked from 1974 to 1997, both years inclusive and hence the total years of work is 24 years. Hence the claim for 30 years of the service is not supported by any documents. 6. The counsel for the respondent has contended that the days of service of each year has been added and divided by 365 and that is how the years and service can be counted. The counsel for the appellant has relied on the explanation to Para 9 of EP Scheme 1995, as per which “in the case of employees employed seasonally in any establishment, the period of actual service in any year, not with standing that such service is less than a year shall be treated as a full year”. No provision in the scheme could be brought to our notice by the counsel for the respondent supporting his contention that service is counted by adding the days of each year and dividing by 365 days. Hence there can be no full year of service in any year as the complainant is a seasonal employee. The explanation to Para 9 of EP. Scheme support the case of the appellant. In the case of seasonal employees the period of service of each year, even if the actual service is less than a year the same should be treated as a full year. In the circumstances, we find that the contention of the opposite parties cannot be upheld. It is further to be noted that the opposite party is to see that the scheme is properly implemented and the employer pays the contribution. In the circumstances, we find that the complainant is entitled for full pension ie;Rs.600/- vide Para 12 (4-b) of the EP scheme. The opposite parties are liable to comply with the above direction. The appeal is allowed. The office will forward the LCR to the Forum. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER | 
