REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. NATHILAL M KUSHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unfortunately, least concerned about the wastage of public money on litigation in trivial matters, relating to retired workmen, as also precious judicial time, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is before us in this set of three Revision Petitions, questioning the correctness of the orders all dated 10.10.2017, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in CRA No.42, 43 and 44 of 2016. By the said orders, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 09.05.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City (for short "the District Forum") condoning the delay, ranging between 2000 to 4000 days in filing of the Complaints by the Complainants, the Respondents herein, and has dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner herein.

(2.) In the first instance, the District Forum had come to the conclusion that since certain amounts were still due to be paid to the Complainants, as employees of a Company, named and styled as 'M/s Amar Auto Parts Private Limited' under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 as well as under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, non-payment of these amounts to them was a continuing cause of action and therefore, there was no question of the Complaints being barred by limitation. Accordingly, the District Forum condoned the afore-stated delay. For reaching the said conclusion, the District Forum also relied on a decision rendered by this Commission on 20.07.2015 in Revision Petition No.3675 of 2013.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the opinion that all the three Revision Petitions are utterly misconceived. We are constrained to observe that instead of contesting the claims made by the Complainants in the Complaints on merits, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is otherwise obliged to watch the interest of the employees, has chosen to file these Revision Petitions. We do not read any Jurisdictional error in the exercise of the discretion vested in District Forum to condone the delay in filing of the Complaints. Consequently, all the three Revision Petitions, being bereft of any merit, are dismissed in limine.