DATE OF FILING : 12.05.2008
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.60/2008
Between
Complainant : R.Ponram, No.943,
Factory,
Periakanal Estate,
Munnar P.O, Pin 685 612,
Idukki District.
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
Periakanal Estate,
M/s.Tata Tea Limited,
Munnar – 685 612.
(By Adv: Jaiju.D.Arackal)
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,
Chalakkuzhy Buildings,
C.M.S College Road,
Kottayam.
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The case was once decided by this Forum on 27th February, 2009. After that it was remanded from the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for producing some documents from the part of the complainant.
2. The complainant was a Supervisor in the Periakanal Estate, Munnar and was a subscriber to Employees Provident Fund. Accordingly the Ist opposite party started deduction of subscription from the monthly wages of the complainant and along with the Employer's contribution remitted with the 2nd opposite party. During 1995, the Government introduced pensioner benefits to the Employees Provident Fund members, so the complainant was required to be an option, through the employer, to be conducted in the pension scheme. The complainant also opted for pension scheme and the recovery was effected to pension fund from May 1996, till the retirement on 22.08.2002. Application for the final settlement of provident fund and sanction of monthly pension was forwarded by the Ist opposite party to the 2nd respondent, after obtaining necessary particulars and signature from the complainant on 20.09.2002. Though the Employees Provident Fund amounts were settled, the pensionary benefit was not passed. Letter No.KR/KTM/135/943/AB7(5)/02-03 dated 11.12.2002 from the 2nd opposite party stated that the complainant is a non-employees Provident fund member, thereby not eligible for monthly pension. Due to repeated representation of the complainant, the Ist opposite party presented this matter to the 2nd opposite party. But on 13.01.2005 the 2nd opposite party replied stating the provident fund account of the complainant has been settled after merging the erroneous payment made under Employees Pension Scheme1995 to the Provident Fund account and full amount paid. After that the complainant personally met the 2nd respondent, and also represented through Public Interest Protection Association Munnar, a social service consumer association. But the 2nd opposite party replied describing the earlier stand. Hence this petition is filed. As per the provisions of the Act, necessary options were filed and got signed by the Ist opposite party and forwarded. The complainant have no role over it, it is the duty of the Ist opposite party to the 2nd opposite party. So it is the deficiency in service from the part of the Ist and 2nd opposite parties to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant, which is quantified to Rs.75,000/-.
3. As per the written version of the Ist opposite party, the complainant has opted for the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1995 during June 1996. The complainant was not a member of the Pension fund under the Employees Pension Fund scheme until then. The contribution of the pension was recovered by this opposite party from the complainant's salary and remitted to Employees' Family Pension Scheme every month till his retirement from service on 22.08.2002. The complainant never filed option, to be inducted in the pension scheme. The complainant has not signed or submitted any option form to this opposite party. On the retirement, he had submitted Form 10-C under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 to the Provident Fund authorities claiming for pension benefits on 20.09.2002 and the same was returned by the Provident Fund authorities stating that the complainant is not a member of the pension scheme. The provident fund authorities had communicated that the Employees Provident Fund share shown in 3-A for the year 2002-2003 has been diverted to Provident fund account and the final payment has been made during October 2002. So he is not eligible for withdrawal benefits. The provident fund authorities had not verified with Ist opposite party before diverting the amount from Family pension fund to Employees Provident fund account. On receiving the information from the complainant, this opposite party had taken up the matter with provident fund authorities. The provident fund authorities informed the Ist opposite party that the complainant was not an employees pension fund member and the option form has not been filed by him. There is no deficiency in the part of the Ist opposite party. The Ist opposite party is not responsible for the complainant's omission to file the option form. Hence the petition may be dismissed.
4. As per the written version of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant joined the Employees Provident Fund as a subscriber with effect from 01.01.1959 and his provident fund account was settled on 24.10.2002, after his retirement. He has not opted for family pension fund scheme 1971 or employees pension scheme 1995 till his resignation or final settlement of employees provident fund account. The employer had not remitted family pension fund contribution from 1971 onwards in respect of the member. However erroneous segregation towards employees' pension scheme was made for the year 2002-2003 from 1.04.2002 to 30.09.2002(6 months only). This was merged with provident fund at the time of settlement. No benefit under employees' pension scheme 1995 is payable to the complainant since he had not opted to join the employees family pension scheme 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The 2nd opposite party is only a statutory authority to give benefit to the eligible employees who have joined and contributed to Employees' Family Pension Scheme 1971 or Employees' Pension Scheme 1995. As per paragraph 6A of the Employees Pension scheme 1995, a member of employees pension fund shall continue to be such member till he attains the age of 58 years. In this case the petitioner had neither opted for Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971 or Employees Pension Fund 1995 nor remitted any amount during the period of his membership. After ceasing his membership on 24.10.2002 he is not eligible to opt for the scheme. Hence there is no deficiency in the part of the 2nd opposite party.
5. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
6. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P11(series) marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite parties and Ext.R1(series)marked on their side.
7. The POINT :- Complainant was a Supervisor under the Ist respondent and was a subscriber to Employees' Provident Fund. The complainant was retired from service on 22.08.2002 and applied for family pension, but it was rejected by the opposite party. Complainant was examined as PW1. As per PW1, he became the member of the Employees' Provident fund scheme with No.KR.135/943. During 1971 the 2nd respondent introduced family pension scheme which was strictly an option. But the complainant was not opted for the family pension scheme. But during 1995-1996 the 2nd opposite party introduced the Employees' Pension Scheme and the PW1 opted for the same. All the forms were got signed from the complainant, including the application for deduction of pension fund accounts from the salary of May 1996 onwards. Copy of the wage slip issued for the month of June 1996 is marked as Ext.P4. PW1 retired from service on 22.08.2002, upto that, the regularly deductions were made to pension fund by the Ist opposite party. Copy of the wage slip in July 2002 is marked as Ext.P5. The complainant filed an application for final settlement of provident fund as also for the pension, through employer Ist opposite party, to the 2nd opposite party which are marked as Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 respectively. But the 2nd opposite party replied stating PW1 is not an employees' pension fund member. The copy of the same is marked as Ext.P8. The application given by the Ist opposite party to the 2nd opposite party to verify the records is marked as Ext.P6. But the 2nd opposite party is stating that the provident fund account of the complainant has been settled after merging the erroneous payment made under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 to the Provident fund account and full amount paid to the member during 10/2002. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P7. The receipt for payment in Employees Provident Fund scheme in 2000-2001 is marked as Ext.P9.
8. As per the written version of the Ist opposite party, the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant had opted for Employees Family pension scheme 1995 during June 1996. But no option for employees pension scheme was done by the complainant. The contribution of the Ist opposite party has been done upto the retirement. A final payment was done to the complainant in October 2002. The provident fund authorities had not verified with the Ist opposite party before diverting the amount from Family Pension Fund to Employees' Provident fund account. On receiving the information from the complainant, the Ist opposite party had taken up the matter with provident fund authorities. They have replied stating that the option was not filed by the complainant and also the complainant is not a member. So the Ist opposite party is not responsible for the omission to file option by the complainant.
9. As per the 2nd opposite party, the scheme shall apply to every employee who has been a member of the Employees Provident Fund on 15.11.1995, but not being a member of the ceased Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 opt to exercise his option by remitting past period contribution with interest thereon under para 7(2) and 17(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. In this case, the petitioner had neither opted for the Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971/Employees Pension Fund 1995 nor remitted any amount during the period of his membership. After ceasing his membership on 24.10.2002, he is not eligible to opt for the same.
10. On perusing the evidence, it is admitted by the complainant that he is not aware whether he has opted for Employees Pension Scheme. PW1 signed in all the papers and he is not aware, which are the papers he signed. One receipt produced by the complainant which is marked as Ext.P4 in which Rs.124/- is written in the column pension, which is a receipt issued from Tata Tea Limited, printed in Tamil. The complainant was again examined as per the order from the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The complainant produced pay slips from May 1996 upto June 2002 which were marked as Ext.P10(series 71 in numbers. The salary receipts are printed in Tamil and filled up in English. So a translator was appointed for translating the same. PW1 deposed that in Ext.P10(1) in the 4th column it is written that provident fund and its below Rs.152/- is written and in the 5th column, it is written that pension in Tamil and the amount is written as Rs.127/-. In Ext.P10(2) it is written in the pension column as Rs.123/-, in P10(3) it is written as Rs.123/-, in P10(4) it is written as 137/-, in P10(5) it is written as Rs.142/-, in P10(6) it is Rs.106/-, in P10(7) it is Rs.146/-, in P10(8) it is Rs.151/- and so on. So a nominal amount has been remitted by the complainant as pension fund in all the receipts produced by the complainant. So it is very clear that the Ist opposite party was contributing some amount to the pension fund of the complainant to the 2nd opposite party from 1996 onwards. Ext.P11(series) are copy of other pay slips produced by the complainant which are 4 in numbers which were issued in the month of January, February, March and April. In which also a contribution of the pension has been done by the complainant. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the Ist opposite party and by the 2nd opposite party, it is suggested that the amount written in the pay slips are mistakenly written by the opposite party and the amount is not deducted from the actual salary. But we think that if it was a mistake happened from the part of the opposite party, that mistake was repeated for more than 6 years and it was not corrected by the opposite party is not at all believable. So it is very clear that the employer has deducted the amount towards the pension from the wages and if the same has not been forwarded to the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party can initiate legal action against the Ist opposite party. As per PW1, he has signed in all the papers which are produced through the Ist opposite party by the 2nd opposite party. But he is not aware, which are the papers he signed. Being an illiterate the complainant may have made some omissions. But the employer ought to have rectified the same. The 2nd opposite party also admitted that erroneous segregation towards Employees pension scheme was made for the year 2002-2003 from 1.04.2002 to 30.09.2002. But it was merged with the provident fund at the time of settlement. The complainant never produced any evidence to show that he has suffered a lot because of the non-availability of the pension especially it affected the education of his children. The opposite party has paid a lump sum amount as provident fund amount to the complainant. So there is no grant for ordering compensation as claimed by the complainant. The denial of the pension is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party evenafter the receipt of the pension fund from the complainant. So we think that the complainant has been contributed his own part towards pension fund from 1996 May onwards upto the retirement of the complainant. So the complainant is liable for the pension.
Hence the petition allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to issue monthly pension to the complainant within one month and the Ist opposite party should submit all the relevant documents if required by the 2nd opposite party for the same.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of November, 2010
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - K.R.Ponram
On the side of Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Copy of Application for Employees Pension Scheme
Ext.P2 - Copy of 2nd opposite party's letter dated 11.12.2002 addressed to the complainant
Ext.P3 - Copy of letter dated 17.03.2004 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the Ist opposite party
Ext.P4 - Copy of Wage Slip issued for the month of June 1996
Ext.P5 - Copy of Wage Slip for July 2002
Ext.P6 - Copy of Ist opposite party's letter dated 9.12.2004 addressed to the 2nd opposite party
Ext.P7 - Copy of letter dated 13.01.2005 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the Ist opposite party
Ext.P8 - Copy of 2nd opposite party's letter sent in November 2007 to the Secretary, Public Interest Protection Association, Munnar
Ext.P9 - Annual Statement of account for the year 2000-2001 in favour of the complainant
Ext.P10(series) - Pay Slips from May 1996 to June 2002(71 Nos)
Ext.P11(series) - Pay Slips for the month of January 1996 to April 1996(4 Nos)
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1(series) - Photocopy of Provident Fund Register(Form 3A) for the period April 1996 to March 2002(6 Pages)
