LAWS(MPH)-2018-11-36

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND Vs. SARASWATI UCCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDHYALA

Decided On November 13, 2018
Employees Provident Fund Appellant
V/S
Saraswati Ucchattar Madhyamik Vidhyala Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked to assail the final order dated 18/4/12 passed in case No. 335/10 by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Guna allowing the complaint u/S. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 preferred by the respondent herein holding the petitioner herein to be liable for rendering deficient services, as a result of which compensation of Rs. 3000/- alongwith Rs. 1000/- for mental pain and litigation expenses of Rs. 500/- in favour of respondent herein with further direction of furnishing requisite forms under the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 to the respondent herein for obtaining necessary information about employer's share of provident funds and thereafter to render the services of payment of interest to the employees/teachers of the respondent/institution.

(2.) Learned counsel for the employees provident funds organization has raised singular ground that the petitioner organization being creature of statute i.e. Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 does not render any "service" as defined in section 2 (1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, is not amenable to the rigorous of the 1986 Act. It is submitted that the said jurisdictional issue was not considered by the District Consumer Redressal Forum and therefore, the order impugned is bereft of jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The aforesaid singular submission of petitioner EPF Organization deserves to be rejected at the very outset in view of the categorical decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, 2000 AIR(SC) 331 which was followed in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Bhavani, 2008 AIR(SC) 2957, relevant paragraphs of both these judgments for ready reference are quoted below:- In the case of Shiv Kumar Joshi (supra) in Para , it is observed:-