JAGANNATHA N SUVARNA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR D K AND UDUPI DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE FISH MARKETING FEDERATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to order dated 11.1.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore ('State Commission' for short) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the District Forum, Udupi in complaint No. 72/2009, Petitioner herein is the complainant and respondent is the opposite party.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Manager in the Malpe Branch of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi District Cooperative Fish Marketing Federation Ltd. for the period 2000-2007. Earlier to that, he was working in the Hejamady and Hangarkatta Branches of the respondent Pederation. He retired on 30.6.2007 after serving in various capacities in the respondent organization for more than 29 years. According to him, retiral benefits amounting to Rs. 4,77,075 were due to him from the respondent organization. The said amount also included provident fund contributed by the petitioner. According to him, a false allegation was made by the respondent/ opposite party against him that he had caused loss to the Federation but the respondent did not explain about the loss alleged to have been caused by him to the Federation. According to him, the allegations made against him were baseless. Even then, when the respondent forfeited his retiral benefits without releasing the same to him on his retirement in spite of repeated requests, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 15.11.2008 and having failed to get a favourable response from the respondent, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against the OP Federation. The OP Federation contested the case by filing its version. After considering the evidence, the complaint filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the District Forum. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dismissing his complaint, the petitioner filed an appeal which also was dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order and hence the present revision petition.

(3.) We have heard Counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that the provident fund and retiral benefits of the petitioner cannot be forfeited by the employers, i.e., the respondent organization since there was no domestic inquiry. He further submitted that the plea taken by the OP Federation regarding the consent of the petitioner cannot be the basis for withholding his retiral benefits because the signatures of the petitioner were taken forcibly by the OP Federation and hence such a consent was not valid. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel has relied on the judgments of this Commission in the case of UCO Bank v. K.L.Kapoor, 2010 4 CPJ 261(NC) and Punjab National Bank v. Sunil Kumar Poddar & Anr., 2008 4 CPJ 58 (NC). Winding up his arguments, learned Counsel submitted that in view of the fact that there is legal protection against attachment of amount standing to the credit of the employee in the employee provident fund and also the fact that signatures on the consent paper of the petitioner were taken forcibly, the adjustment of the retiral benefits of the petitioner by the OP Federation cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence the orders of the Fora below are liable to be set aside and complaint of the petitioner deserves to be accepted.