Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Bhavani

2. Of the five matters, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 20260 of 2004 and Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8661 of 2004 have been filed against order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the National Commission') dismissing the Revision Petitions filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition. Both the Revision Petitions were dismissed on the ground that the delay had not been sufficiently explained. Though in these two Special Leave Petitions it is the order rejecting the Revision Petitions on ground of delay that is involved, ultimately, it is the order of the State Commission allowing the claim of the respondents concerned which is the subject matter of all these five matters. Furthermore, the effect of the orders passed by the National Commission in all these five matters is the same in respect of the different petitioners before the District Forum and it is their claim which has been upheld right through up to the National Commission.

5. The respondent Bhavani was a worker in Cashew Factory No.III (Naduvathoor) owned and managed by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, Kollam and according to her she retired from service on 31.12.1995 on attaining 60 years of age. Bhavani was a member of the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and was making contribution to the Scheme. In her service records maintained by the company her date of birth was shown as 31.12.1935 and though she was eligible for pension, the same was not ordered by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the appellant herein in all these appeals. Aggrieved by the failure and/or the refusal of the Regional Provident Fund Authorities to release pension to her, Bhavani filed an application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') Kollom, praying for a direction upon the appellant herein to release her pensionary benefits from the date of her retirement from service i.e. 31.12.1995. Bhavani's claim was contested by the appellant herein before the District Forum by filing a counter affidavit wherein it was contended that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, would have no application to a claim made under the Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act'), inasmuch as, Bhavani, the respondent herein, was not a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act.

7. The District Forum rejected the case made out on behalf of the appellant herein on a scrutiny of the various documents submitted on behalf of Bhavani to establish that her date of birth in the records of the company was 31.12.1935. The District Forum came to a finding that since Bhavani was eligible for the benefits of the 1995 Scheme, denial of the same amounted to deficiency of service which would attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum on considering the provisions of Section 2(1)(d)

8. The District Forum also rejected the said contention of the appellant herein upon holding that the service rendered by the appellant herein did not fall within the exempted categories. The District Forum categorically found that the services rendered by the appellant herein to Bhavani came within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

11. The question involved in the other matters taken up along with this appeal is identical and have been allowed by the District Forum and thereafter by the State and National Commissions.

24. We, therefore, have no hesitation in upholding the orders passed by the National Commission. All the six appeals filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner are accordingly dismissed.

25. There will, however, be no order as to costs.