REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. RAHUMA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a worker with a cashew factory and was covered under Employees Provident Fund Scheme. She retired on 31.12.1995 after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. All dues under the scheme were paid to her but when she made application for grant of pension under this scheme, it was rejected on the ground that as per records with the petitioner, the complainant should have retired on 27.3.1985. The Pension Scheme is applicable only to the workers who were in service as on 1.4.1993. Alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. During the pendency of the proceedings before the District Forum unfortunately the complainant died bereft of pension - Thanks to the petitioner. Two children of the complainant were joined as parties, who prosecuted the case. The District Forum after hearing the parties and perusal of material and evidence on record allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the pensionary benefits effective from 1.1.1996 along with arrears @ 12% p.a., compensation of Rs. 500/- and costs of Rs. 500/-. In the appeal filed by the petitioner the State Commission while dismissing the appeal affirmed the order of the District Forum, hence the revision petition.

(3.) The only controversy raised before us relates to the date of birth of the complainant. This has been gone into much greater detail by the District Forum by addressing all the points raised by the parties. The State Commission has also affirmed the order passed by the District Forum both on facts and law. Two points have been made before us by learned Counsel for the petitioner, one that both the lower Forums failed to appreciate the fact that the date of birth of the complainant as per record was 27.3.1925. If needed it was so, then we fail to understand as to under what circumstances the petitioner's hierarchy kept accepting the EPF contribution till 31.12.1995 for almost ten years after the alleged date of the complainant having attained the age of superannuation on 27.3.1985. There is sublime silence on this point by the petitioner. As per record the date of birth was communicated to the petitioner by the employer. In his affidavit, he states that he wanted to correct this date on the relevant record but no reply was ever received from the petitioner. So much for the case of the poor by an agency of the Government charged with the responsibility to take care of welfare of the workers. The petitioner also failed to show to the District Forum any document of the complaint not having opted for the pension scheme.