IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 32712 of 2000(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. MEENAKSHI AMMA, VARUTHUGIL VEEDU, PALLISSERIKKAL, ASASTHAMKOTTAH P.O., VIA KOLLAM. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *4. UMAIBA, OTTAPLAVILA VEEDU, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. 5. SALEENA, METOTTUKIZHAKKATHIL, CHENGAMANADU, PERINAD, KOLLAM. 6. CHELLAMMAYAMMA, W/O. BHASKARAN PILLAI, AIYARAM THENGUCHERRY, KOTTIKKADA P.O., THATTAMALA, KOLLAM. 7. R. RAGHAVAN NAIR, KAIPALLY KIZHAKKETHARA, PUNAKKULAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. OP NO. 32712/2000 T 8. DEVAKI, SREE VILASAM, EDAMANASSERI, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 9. CHELLAMMAYAMMA, PUTHEN VEEDU, KAKKAKOTTOOR, AMBALATHUMKALA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. 10. VIDHYADHARAN, RAJEEV MANDIRAM, EDAVANASSERY, N. MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 11. SAVITHRY, MELATHIL VEEDU, CHITUMALA MIZHAKKU, THEKKUMURI, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. 12. DEVAKI AMMA, KATTAYIL THOZHATHIL PUTHAN P.O, KOLLAM. 13. KAUSALYA, W/O. PODIYAN, NEELIVILA VEEDU, MULAVANA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 14. JANAKI, EDATHUNDIL HOUSE, KATIHACODE P.O., VAROOR. 15. K. ALIYARKUNJU, NIZ MANZIL, OONNUKALLU, KUNNEL P.O., KADACKAL. *ADDL. R4 TO R15 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/03/2008 IN CMP NO. 15681/2001. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008 ALONG WITH OP NOS. 5699/2001 AND 6538/2001 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NOS. 55812/2000 AND 15682/2001 IN OP NO. 32712/2000 T. DISMISSED 14/03/2008. SD/- KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS, EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 IN OP NO. 51/99. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R2 DT. 14TH MAY, 2000. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO. 1013 OF 1999 FILED BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R3 DT. 16/5/00. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE OP (Q) 934/99 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE R2. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE OP NO. 787/99 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE R2. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE OP (Q) NO. 865/99 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE OP (Q) NO. 866/99 BEFORE THE R2 BY M. RAGHAVAN NAIR. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE OP NO. 932/99 FILED BEFORE R2 BY DEVAKI. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE OP NOI. 943/I999 FILED BEFORE THE R2 BY CHELLAMMA AMMA. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE OP NO. 932/99 FILED BEFORE THE R2 BY VIDHYADHARAN. EXT.P12. COPY OF THE OP NO. 977/99 FILED BEFORE THE R2 BY SAVITHRY. EXT.P13. COPY OF THE OP NO. 5/00 FILED BEFORE THE R2 BY DEVAKIAMMA. EXT.P14. COPY OF THE OP NO. 40/00 FILED BY KAUSALYA. EXT.P15. COPY OF THE OP NO. 128/00 FILED BEFORE THE R2 BY JANAKI. EXT.P16. COPY OF THE OP NO. 135/00 FILED BY K. ALIARTHKUNJU. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga KURIAN JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P. No. 32712 OF 2000 & O.P. Nos.5699 & 6538 OF 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has filed these original petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the petitioner, Forums under the said Act have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint regarding date of birth for the purpose of pension scheme. 2. It cannot be disputed that the legal question is covered against the petitioner in view of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been categorically held that the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act can also look into the complaints regarding deficiency of service on the part of the Employees Provident Fund. That apart, on merits it is seen that the Forums under the Act have gone into the factual position as to the correct date of birth of the employees for the purpose of pension scheme. It is significant to note that the employers do not have any dispute regarding the date of birth as sought to be O.P. No. 32712/00& conn. cases 2 corrected by the employees. The Employees Provident Fund is also getting the contribution with respect to the corrected date of birth. In the above circumstances, the original petitions are dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. smp O.P. No. 32712/00& conn. cases 3 KURIAN JOSEPH, J O.P. No. 32712 OF 2000 & O.P. Nos.5699 & 6538 OF 2001 J U D G M E N T 14.03.2008.