OM PRAKASH DUBEY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for following relief;

(2.) It is alleged that the petitioner was initially appointed in M/s. J.C. Mills Ltd., Gwalior on 27/1/1965. He continuously worked there till the winding up of the M/s. J.C. Mills Ltd., Gwalior. The petitioner has been member to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 allotted earlier an Account No. MP/7/28316 in the year, 1989. His service has been terminated in the month of June, 1986. Thereafter order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court, and in pursuance to the order passed by Labour Court petitioner's services were reinstated on 19.9.1989. After passing of the award by Labour Court on 4/3/1992 the petitioner was held to be in-continuous service from 27/1/1965 till 4/5/1998 and has become entitled for pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The pension was denied to the petitioner, against which he has preferred an compliant before the Consumer Court seeking a direction for payment of pension, but the said complaint has been dismissed on 16.1.2009, vide Annexure P/6 with liberty to raise dispute before the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. Counsel for the petitioner has further brought to the notice of this Court vide order dated 22/4/2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court in Company Petition No. 4/97, whereby Hon'ble Court has held that as the liability of the company has already been determined by the Court and an amount of Rs. 6,45,40,834/- (Rs. Six crore, forty-five lac, forty thousand, eight hundred thirty four) was lying with the Provident Fund Department was not released to the official liquidator for disbursement. It was further contended that in terms of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the petitioner has become entitled for Family Pension Scheme as he has completed more than 10 years of the service on the aforesaid post.

(3.) Per contra Counsel appearing for the Commissioner Provident Fund by filing the reply has stated that petitioner was not the member of the Pension Scheme prior to 1.12.1989. No contribution of pension has been deposited for the period prior to 1.12.1989 by the employer. As per the official record, the petitioner become member of the scheme w.e.f. 1.12.1989 and the pension contribution has been deposited for the period 1989-90 to 1992-93. Petitioner's eligible service being less than 10 years, scheme certificate was granted to the petitioner but as he was not entitled for pension and during the pendency of the matter the petitioner has raised the claim before the Consumer Court and the same was withdrawn alongwith benefit of Rs. 6,368/- which were paid to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Employee Pension Scheme 1995. The respondents have brought on record the copy of the Scheme Certificate issued to the petitioner. The copy of Consumer Court order and also the deposit of cheque amounting to Rs. 6,368/-. Thus, the respondents have contended that the petitioner was not entitled for benefits of Employment Provident Fund Scheme as he has not worked for 10 years to make him eligible for the benefit of the scheme. Accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of petition.