Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/12/2015

N. Vijayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Management, Lawson Division - Opp.Party(s)

Saravanan

07 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 12 of 2015

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.199/2012 dated 22.01.2013 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. Coimbatore.

 

Monday, the 7^th day of February 2022

 

N.Vijayan

S/o. Narayanan

Lawson Division

Chinchona, Valparai Taluk

Coimbatore District.                                               .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

- Vs –

 

1.  The Management

     Lawson Division

     Tamil Nadu Tea Plantations

     Valparai Taluk

     Coimbatore District.

 

2.  The Provident Fund Commissioner

     Employees Provident Fund Organisation

     Regional Office

     Dr.Balasundaram Road

     Coimbatore - 641 018.                            .. Respondents/ Opposite Parties

   

    Counsel for Appellant /Complainant                        : M/s. Saravanan

    1^st Respondent / 1^st Opposite Party                         : Party – in - person

    Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent /2^nd Opposite Party: M/s. R. Meenakshi

                                                                            

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 25.01.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 22.01.2013 passed in C.C. No.199/2012 by the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

 

2.   The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows: It is the case of the Complainant that he was an employee under the first opposite party, since 1971.  While so, on 12.01.1984 he was dismissed from the service on false charges.  Hence, he raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. No.59/86.  The said I.D.No.59/86 was allowed and direction was given to the first opposite party to reinstate the complainant in service, with continuity of service, with backwages etc.  The said order was challenged by the first opposite party in W.P.No.11415 of 1987 before the High Court, Madras.  The writ petition was dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore.  Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, the complainant was reinstated in service, with continuity of service and was paid a sum of Rs.85,828.88 as backwages.  Since the complainant was not physically fit he was unable to continue the job, he retired from service voluntarily on 15.10.2002.  Thereafter, the complainant through first opposite party sent the P.F and Pension papers to the second opposite party.  Since the P.F. amount was not remitted by the first opposite party for a period of 13 years., i.e. from 1984 to 1997, during the complainant’s non-employment period, the complainant could not get his P.F and pension.  Further, the opposite parties have not calculated the pension for 31 years, taking into account the non-employment period of 13 years, of the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice on 09.03.2012, for which a reply letter dated 27.04.2012 was sent by the second opposite party to the first opposite party asking for certain particulars.  Thereafter, there was no response from the opposite parties.  Though the complainant retired on 15.10.2002, the opposite parties have not taken any steps to pay the pension amount.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, he has come forward with the present complaint, for the following reliefs:-

a)  to pay 12% interest for Rs.20,599/-, being the 24% P.F. amount for the backwages,  as ordered by the Court;

b)  to pay arrears of pension for the period from 15.10.2002 to 14.05.2012, for 115 months, totalling Rs.3,45,000/-;

c)  to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards mental tension; and

e)  to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.  The first opposite party has filed a counter stating that the first respondent Estate was under the direct control of Tamil Nadu Government Forest Department as Cinchona Plantations and the Government have wound up Cinchona plantations and handed over the estates to the First Respondent Corporation with effect from 1^st April 1990.  The first opposite party is having 11 tea divisions and 8 tea factories situated in the Districts of Nilgiris & Coimbatore.  The complainant has filed this Complaint with a considerable delay and belatedly after a period of nearly 10 years.  On this ground the complaint has to be dismissed. 

 

4.  The complainant joined service in erstwhile Government Cinchona Plantations during the year 1971.  On 11.01.1984, the complainant assaulted the Supervisor at the work spot, while on duty.  Hence, he was charge sheeted, then dismissed from service, on 12.01.1984.   Against the said order, he has filed a case in I.D.No.59 of 1986 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore.  Finally, the Labour Court ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages.  Against the said order, the first respondent Corporation filed a Writ Petition before the High Court in W.P.No.11405/1987 and the same was dismissed on 02.09.1996.  Thereafter, he was reinstated into service during October 1996 and received backwages for a sum of Rs.85,828.88.  The complainant received the said payment without any protest and gave a receipt at the time of disbursement.  As soon as the complainant received his backwages for the non-employment period on 19.02.1998, he ought to have remitted the PF contribution.  He has failed to do so.    Then, he went on voluntary retirement on medical grounds on 15.12.2002 and the necessary PF Claim Forms 19 & 10D were sent to the Provident Fund Authorities for settlement as early as 01.04.2003.  The second respondent informed to the claimant to appear before the Medical Board constituted for the purpose of determining his disability pension under Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.  It is not known to the first respondent, as to whether the complainant has appeared before the Medical Board constituted by the second respondent and perused his claim.  The first respondent is also not aware of the settlement of PF or release of pension by the second respondent to the employees including the complainant.  After 10 years, the complainant has come forward and filed this Complaint, which has no merits and is barred by limitation.  Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

5.       The second opposite party has also filed a counter stating that the complainant was an employee of TANTEA [formerly known as Cinchona] with effect from 01.04.1990.  On cancellation of the exemption granted to M/s.The Cinchona, Valparai on 31.03.1990, the employees of M/s.Cinchona were transferred to various divisions of TANTEA in Valparai, Ooty and Coonoor.  The complainant was transferred to the first opposite party and was allotted with PF Account No.TN/CBE/5587/201 with effect from 01.04.1990.  As per the records maintained by the opposite party, the complainant was a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme and he has not opted for FPF/EPS benefit.  The second opposite party was not aware of the particulars/ information furnished by the complainant regarding re-employment or the backwages.   The second opposite party has taken necessary action calling for the details from the first opposite party.  There is no deficiency of service as stated by the complainant. 

 

6.      In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit has been filed, no documents have been marked.  No documents were marked by the opposite parties.

 

7.  The District Forum, after analyzing the evidence and entire records, has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation. 

 

8.  Heard the submissions and perused the material available on records.

9.   On perusal of the order we find that the complainant has retired from service voluntarily on 15.10.2002.  Therefore, he ought to have filed the complaint, for the alleged non-settlement of PF claims, interest, pension etc., within two years from that date i.e., on or before 14.10.2004.  But he has filed the Complaint only in the year 2012, i.e., after a period of 10 years from the date of voluntary retirement.  Hence, it is clear that the complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Further, in the order it is observed that as early as 08.04.2006, the employer has sent a letter to the PF Commissioner directing him to settle the pension benefits of the complainant. But the complainant has not followed up the matter, thereafter.  All of a sudden in the year 2012 after issuing legal notice, he has filed this complaint.  Hence, only after considering at all angles, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that the complaint is barred by limitation.  We do not find any infirmity in the said order.

 

10.    It is the further grievance of the counsel for the complainant that the District Forum has failed to consider the negligence on the part of the second respondent in exercising his duty as an overseeing authority.  The negligence on the part of the second respondent towards performing its duty as an overseeing authority would amount to dereliction of duty.  But, this aspect was not considered. In our considered opinion, as observed by the District Forum when the complaint itself is hit by limitation, the complaint cannot be considered on merits.    Even in the grounds of appeal, he has not raised any ground as to how the complaint is maintainable on the ground of limitation.  Therefore, we are left with no other alternative, except to confirm the order passed by the District Forum.

 

11.  In the result, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore made in C.C. No.199/2012 dated 22.01.2013.  There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2022