<br /> <br /> By Adv. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> The Complainant prays to direct the 2nd opp.party to pay the monthly Pension and other deductions under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.<br /> <br /> Brief facts of the Complainant’s case in as under.<br /> <br /> The Complainant who was a worker under the 1st opp.party retired from the factory on 31.12.2000 due to Super annuation at the age of 58 years. Complainant was born in the years 1942 for which them is valid documentary evidence. The Complainant had entired in to service on 1969 under the Karuna Cashew Factory having account No. KR 1268/206. She joined in Employees Provident Fund on 1969. After the 1st opp.party became the owner of the Cashew Factory in the year 1991 when the Complainant was employed her account number has been changed. The Complainant’s Provident Fund accumulation is not settled after her retired as KR 1268/1529. The 2nd opp.party rejected the benefit of the Pension on the plea that she had only a total service less than 10 years and she had attained 58 years on 01.04.1998. The Complainant alleges that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opp.party. <br /> <br /> The 1st opp.party remained absent and hence they were set exparte.<br /> <br /> The case of the 2nd opp.party is an under: The Complainant who was an employee of the 1st opp.party joined in the Employees Provident Fund 1971 Scheme with effect from 01.04.1991 at the age of 51 years as per Form No.9. The Complainant acquired the age of 58 years on 01.04.1998 and the eligible service comes below 10 years and there fore not eligible for pension. The 2nd Opp.party there fore prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party.<br /> 2. Compensation and cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant filed affidavit Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked. Pw1 wax examined.<br /> <br /> For the opposite parties DW1 examined. Exhibits D1 and D2 were marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Point (1) and (2)<br /> <br /> The case of the Complainant is that the 2nd opposite party is bound to pay the pension. According to the Complainant her year of birth in 1942 and she attained the age of 58 years on 31.12.2000 and she is entitled to get the benefit of Pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.<br /> <br /> Here the point to be decided is whether the Complainant is entitled to get the pensionary benefit. Service was terminated by the 1st opp.party. It is clear from the termination notice issued to the Complainant by the 1st opp.party that her service was terminated by the 1st opp.party with effect from 31.12.2000 asserting that she had attained 58 years on 31.12.2000. That fact in evidenced by Exhibit P1 produced by the Complainant. Her form No. 10D application for sanctioning Pension was rejected by the appellant and returned to her on the ground that on basis of the document that her year of joining on the Employees provident Fund on 1991 at the age of 51 years and she is not having required minimum eligible service of 10 years for getting monthly pension. Exhibit P2 was sent by the 2nd opp.party rejecting Complainant’s claim for pensionary benefits on the above stated grounds.<br /> <br /> For proving the date of birth the Complainant has produced a certificate. Exhibit P4 issued by the Secretary and Registrar of Birth and Death, Melila Grama Panchayath that her date of birth in 31.05.1944. According to complaint, the Complainant’s date of birth in 1942. So exhibit P4 does not support the Complainant’s case. In form No. 9 declaration produced by the 2nd opp.party and evidenced by exhibit D1 she had joined in the Employees Provident Fund on 01.04.1991 at the age of 51 Form No. 2 declaration is not produced by the 2nd opp.party.<br /> <br /> Though in Exhibit D1 the Complainant’s age is shown as 51 years, no reliance could be placed on it on the ground that there is no material to show that age of Complainant was entered in Exhibit D1 on the basis of information furnished by the Complainant. As form No: 2 is not produced adverse interference is to be drawn against it.<br /> <br /> There is no case for the opposite party that after the change of management the Complainant discontinued to be an employee of the Factory for some period and joined again in the year 1991. Para 6 of 1971 Scheme says that member of family Pension fund shall continue to be a member of the Family Pension Fund till he becomes entitled to with draw the benefits to which he is entitled under this scheme or dies during the period of reckonable service, whichever is earlier. Here the Complainant continued to be an employee of the Factory from the year of joining 1969 till she retired on 31.12.2000. She continued to be a member of 1971 Scheme till 15.11.1995. Her past service was from 1971 to 1995 that in 24 years and her actual service from 16.11.1995 till 31.12.2000. Hence the opp.party was not justified in refusing pensionary benefits under the 1995 scheme holing that she was having only service of loss than 10 years. Since the denial of pensionary in service on the part of the 2nd opp.party. There fore the Complainant is entitled to get pension from 31.01.2001.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed. The 2nd opp.psrty is directed to sanction pensionary benefits to the complaint in accordance with law. The 2nd opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost to the proceedings. The order is to be complied with in one month o\from the date of receipt of the order. <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> INDEX<br /> <br /> List of witness for the complainant<br /> PW1 : Baby Danial<br /> Ext. P1: Termination Order<br /> Ext. P2: Repudiation letter<br /> Ext. P3: Copy of E.S.I. Card<br /> Ext. P4: Receipt showing the remittance of Pension contribution.<br /> <br /> List of witness for the Opposite party<br /> Ext. D1 : Form No:9<br /> Ext. D2 : Form No.9 of Kunjamma.<br /> <br />