ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.
This complaint is filed by the original complainant for getting his pensionary benefit under the EPS 1995 and for other reliefs.
The original complainant Sri.Kunjachan was an employee of the Ayoor Sastha Enterprises Cashew Factory with EPF membership No.KR/1234/1006. He had entered in the service of the factory in1974 and had retired from service on 1.9.1999 on after attaining 60 years of age. His year of birth is 1938 as per the ESI card and as per the records of the factory and the cashew welfare fund board. But the opp.party rejected his
pension application on the ground that she had completed 60 years of age on 1990 as per statutory records. Hence the original complainant filed this complaint before the Forum for getting relief. On 17..10..2006 the original complainant died and his nominee and son Joy Kunjachan is impleaded as Additional complainant.
Opp.party filed version stating that the complainant Sri.K. Kunjachan has joined the employees’ Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and Employees’ Family Pension Scheme 1971 on1.88.1974, that the complainant’s age has been furnished 44 years as on 1..8..1974 by the employer who is the authorized official to file the return in form No.9 under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme 1952. The Form No.9 is a basic statutory return. Subscribers bio-data are furnished in the basic return which is a permanent document relied upon for Employee3s’ Provident Fund matters. There is a difference of 8 years and odd in respect of the age entered in form No.9 to that of the one now claimed by the complainant. The original documents are highly required. Therefore, the complainant has been requested to produce the original documents vide letter dated 11..8..2004 and 7..6..2005. The opp.party could verify and take a decision in the matter only after scrutiny of the original records. The allegation about deficiency is therefore denied and unsustainable and hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
Points that would arise for consideration are
1. Whether the complainant is eligible to get the pensionary benefits.:
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party
3. Reliefs and costs.
For the complainant PW.1 is examined and Exts. P1 to P6 are marked
For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined and marked Exts. D1 to D3
POINTS 1 to 3
The case of the original complainant is that he was duly a PF contributor from 1974 to 1999 until his retirement at the age of 60 years. And though the pension application was put forward to the opp.party duly through the employer, the opp.party rejected the pension application alleging technical reasons that he had completed 60 years of age on 1.8.1990 as per Form No.9 and there is a difference of 8 years in respect of the age entered in Form No.9 to that of the one claimed by the complainant. The original documents are highly required. The complainant has been requested to produce the original documents. But he did not produce the original documents. According to the complainant as per direction of opp.party, he had already submitted the original documents to the opp.party. In this case the disputed matter is the year of birth of the complainant. As per Ext. D1 [Form No.9] the complainant is 44 years on 1.8.1974. Ext. P1 and P3 are ESI card and the termination order. Ext.P1 ESI card shows his year of birth is 1938 and Ext.3 the termination letter prepared and delivered by the factory manager shows that the complainant had already attained 60 years on 1.9.1999. Exept. D1, the opp.party did not produce any other documents ie. form No.2 to prove the year of birth of the complainant. Here the opp.party failed to produce Form No.2 which is supposed to be the authentic record in regard to the PF organization. The already produced and marked record Form No.9 D1is not at all dependable. Hence all the factory records including the termination order Ext.P3, ESI card Ext.P1 stating that the year of birth of the complainant is 1938 and he was superannuated on 1.9.1999 after attaining of 60 years of age. During the argument time the learned counsel for the opp.party argued that Ext.P1 cannot be taken as evidence as it is a photocopy. But the document was marked as Ext.P1 without any objection from the opp.party side. Hence Ext.P1 is an acceptable document. Hence we come to the conclusion that the original complainant who was born on 1938 as per Ext.P1, superannuated on 1.9.1999 as per Ext.P3., is eligible to receive all pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 from 1..10..1996 on attaining 58 years as per Ext.P1 as per provisions para 6 [d] 7 [3] and 17[3] of the EPS 1995. The rejection of the pensionary benefits is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party
In the result , .the complaint is allowed directing the opp.party to realize all pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 from1.10.1996 as per provisions with 9% interest coupled with Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant ie. legal heirs of the original complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order
Dated this the 13th day of April, 2012.
G
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant.
PW.1. – Kunjachan
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Photocopy of ESI card
P2. – Kerala cashew workers welfare board identity card [photocopy]
P3. – Copy of Pension book
P4. – Age certificate from the Yeroor Panchayat President
P5. – Affidavit
P6. – Termination order
List of witnesses for the opp.party
DW.1. –Pankajakshy Amma
List of documents for the opp.parties
D1. – Form No.9
D2. – Letter sent by opp.party to the complainant dt. 11..8..2006
D3. – Letter sent by opp.party to the complainant dt. 7..6..2005
