REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SHANTI PRASAD JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A double tragedy emanating from one tragic incident has brought the complainant Shri Shanti Prasad Jain to the District Forum, Bijnore with the claim that family pension payable under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 be made available to the complainant because in that road accident his beloved son, Tapesh Jain and his wife Smt. Nidhi Jain, were seriously injured resulting in instantaneous death of Tapesh Jain and Nidhi Jain went in coma who expired within a few days without gaining consciousness. The claim was initially forwarded by the complainant to the authorities as intimated to him at the behest of the employees Organisation who in turn intimated the complainant that the matter was cognizable by the Meerut authorities and the pension has been sanctioned, which office may be contacted for further action. The complainant initiated the proceedings before the District Forum, Bijnore impleading Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub -Regional Office, situated at IInd Floor, Vikash Bhawan, Civil Lines, Meerut, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), S.R.O. Cantt. Building, Pune and Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi. The District Forum has found favour with the claim registered but the appellants who are all the three opposite parties in the complaint, are aggrieved by the said order and have come up with a challenge to the very directions to pay family pension to the complainant -respondent.

(2.) MR . Udayesh Narayan Gaur, learned Counsel for the appellants has been heard at length. Sri Shanti Prasad has appeared in person who also has been heard. The entire record has been examined.

(3.) BEFORE coming to the merits of the matter, two objections raised by Mr. Gaur may be mentioned only to be rejected. The first, Bijnore Forum had no jurisdiction because the appellants did not have any branch or office and, therefore, the territorial jurisdiction was wanting. But the fact remains that on notice of the complaint, all the three opposite parties contested the matter on merits, did not raise any objection on territorial jurisdiction and have fully participated in the proceedings. Having thus looked upon the case only on merits right from the very beginning, the belated objection about so called lack of territorial jurisdiction is rejected.