IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15827 of 2010(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, FORT ROAD, KANNUR. BY ADVS. MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MRS.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. A.JAYAKRISHNAN, KRISHNAPURI, T.K.ROAD, THAZHECHOVVA, KANNUR-670 018. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR. 3. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR. P.N. SANTHOSH – GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.15827 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of MAY, 2010 J U D G M E N T The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, who is expected to champion the cause of the workmen community, has come up with this writ petition against a workman, in whose favour the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have issued orders in respect of meagre pension payable to the first respondent. The contention is that the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act do not have jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to matters under the Employees Pension Scheme. Admittedly, the petitioner has a right to file a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Instead of that, they have straight away challenged the orders of the Forum and Commission before this Court. The justification put forward by the petitioner for filing this writ petition, instead of filing a revision before the National Consumer Disputes W.P.(c)No.15827/10 2 Redressal Commission, is that the Forum as well as the Commission has passed orders without jurisdiction. I could have appreciated such a contention if immediately after the Forum passed order rejecting the contention regarding jurisdiction, they had approached this Court challenging jurisdiction. But they have chosen to file an appeal as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act itself before the Commission and suffered an adverse judgment. Having once chosen to avail of the alternate remedy the petitioner has to take the proceedings to its logical conclusion through the judicial hierarchy as provided in the Statute. In such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner is to take up the matter with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In such circumstances I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition at this stage. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the National Tribunal in revision, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.15827/10 3 W.P.(c)No.15827/10 4