REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. G.ESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 07.03.2007 passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission ') in FA No. 405/2004, "Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar vs. G. Eswaramma and Ors. " by which while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 29.03.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nabrangpur allowing the complaint no. 81/03 was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1 is the widow of a deceased workman G.S.M. Reddy who joined duty on 18.07.81 in Podagada Dam Division, which was allotted PF Code No. OR/3156. He was working as carpenter (WC) in the office of respondent no. 2, Executive Engineer, Podagada Dam Division, District Nabarangpur. The Podagada Dam Division establishment was covered under the Employees Provident Fund Act (EPF) 1952, with effect from 31.07.1983. A deduction from the salary of the deceased was made with effect from August 1983. However, subsequently, the deceased along with some other employees was transferred to another establishment in November 1983, namely, Kapur Dam Division. The said establishment was not covered by the Provident Fund Scheme. The deceased was transferred from Podagada Dam Division on 9.11.1983 and joined the new establishment on 11.11.83. Later on, Kapur Dam Division was also covered under the EPF Act with effect from 30.11.86 vide code number OR/3244. Unfortunately, G.S.N. Reddy died on 07.03.87, meaning thereby that he remained covered under the EPF Act for a period of little over three months. The plea taken by the complainant says that her husband was entitled for payment of EPF dues and pension under the relevant rules. The District Forum vide their order dated 29.03.2004 directed the petitioner/OP No. 1 to take immediate necessary steps to regularise the matter by collecting the information/document from OP No. 2 for payment of EPF claims and also sanction pension in favour of the complainant according to relevant rules. An appeal was filed against this order by the petitioner before the State Commission, but the same was dismissed with costs by the State Commission. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to clause 6 of the scheme entitled as "Retention of Membership ". He argued that the transfer of the employee from one establishment to another cannot be taken as a break in service.