LexREGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER versus BHAVANI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 6 s.C.l=t 767 REGIONAL PROVIOt'.NT FUND COMMISSIONER vs. BHAVANI (Civil Appeal No. 644T of 2001 etc.) APRIL 22, 2008 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act; 1952 - Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 A 8 - Pension under - Denial of - On the ground that the worker c was not entitled since according to her date of birth in the records of the Commission, she retired in 1992 - According. to date of birth of the worker in the records of the employer, she retired in 1995 - Worker was a/so member of Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1971 - D Provident Fund Commission receiving the worker's contribution upto 1995 - Courts below allowing the claim of the worker holding her date of retirement as per the record of employer - On appeal, held : The date of birth of the worker recorded with the employer is the correct date of birth - In the facts of the case, the worker was entitled to the benefit of E 1995 Scheme - Pension. Consumer Protection Act, 1986- s.2(1) (d) (ii) and 2 (1) (o) - Applicability of the Act - To the claim of pension made under Employees' Provident Fund Act - Held .· Applicable - F The Authority under the Provident Fund Act responsible for the working of the Pension Scheme, is a 'service giver' within meaning of s. 2 (1 )(o) - The relation of the 'service giver' and the claimant would come within the concept of 'master and servant' - The claimant is a 'consumer' - Employees' G Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - . Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. ~- Respondent was a member of the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and 767 H 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R. A was making contribution as per the Scheme. Her date of ~-- birth as in the records of the employer-company was 31.12.1935. She retired from service on 31.12.1995 on attaining 60 years of age. She claimed pension as per Employees' Pension scheme, 1995 Appellant- s Commissioner denied the same. She filed application before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking release of her pensionary benefits. Application was contested on the ground that consumer Protection Act is not applicable to the claim made under the Employees' c Provident Fund, as the claimant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Provident Fund Act; that she was entitled to the benefit under Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 because she retired in 1992 i.e. before the cut off date for applicability of the Scheme, 0 and that according to the records of the Commission, her date of birth was 24.9.1932. District Forum, gave the finding that her date of birth was 31-12-1935 and + ~ therefore, she was eligible for the benefits of the 1995 Scheme and denial of the same amounted to deficiency in service attracting provisions of Consumer Protection E Act, 1986; and that the services rendered by the appellant to the respondent came within t~e ambit of Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act. The order of District Forum were unsuccessfully challenged before F State Commission as well as National Commission. In appeal to this Court, appellant, in addition to the contentions raised before District forum, contended that the practice of the employees approaching the management at the fag end of their careers asking for G altering their dates of birth to their advantage, had been deprecated by this court, and hence it is not permissible in the present case as well. Otl'ler appeals also involved same question. Dismissing the appeals, the Court H REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER v. 769 BHAVANI HELD: 1.1 The dates,of birth of the respondents as A recorded in their servjce records with the. company are th.e correct dates of birth of the employees and not the dates of birth as entered in the records of the appellant. The reasoning given by the District Forum in accepting the entries in the company's record while rejecting those 8 in the records of the appellanURegional Provident Fund Commissioner are based on sound logic and the materials on record. There was no denial on the part of the appellant that the respondent continued to contribute to the fund till the year 1995. No explanation is c forthcoming as to why and how such contributions were received, even though according to the records of the appellant, the respondent had retired on 31.12.1992. [Para
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.