REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER v. BHAVANI

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 767

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, V.S. SIRPURKAR

Case summary

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER v. BHAVANI.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 6 s. C. l=t 767 REGIONAL PROVIOt'. NT FUND COMMISSIONER vs. BHAVANI (Civil Appeal No. 644T of 2001 etc. ) APRIL 22, 2008 8 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND V. S. SIRPURKAR, JJ. ] Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act; 1952 - Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 - Pension under - Denial of - On the ground that the worker 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 - 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 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 - 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' 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 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 Appellants 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' 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, and that according to the records of the Commission, 0 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 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 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 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 BHAVANI HELD: 1. 1 The dates,of birth of the respondents as 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 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 19] [776-A-D] . . 1. 2 It is not correct to say that the cases of the respondents should not be considered as they had applied at the fag end of their careers for correction of their dates of birth in the appellant's records.

The aforesaid principle cannot apply to the case of the respondents as their dates of birth had been correctly recorded in the records of the company, including the respondents' service records, on the basis whereof they had retired from the company's services. [Para 23] [777-E-F] 2. Consumer Protection Act is applicable to the case of the respondent on account of the fact that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the person responsible for the working of the 1995 Pension Scheme, must be held to be a 'service giver' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. This is not a case of rendering of free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal service so as to bring the relationship between the appellant and respondent within the concept of 'master and servant'.

The respondent comes squarely within the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1 )(d)(li), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees' Famlly Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme. The same Is the case in 13 the other appeals as well. [Para 20] [776·E·G] Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi 2000 (1) sec 98 - relied on. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6447 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 21. 9. 2000 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Review Retition No. 1292 of 2000. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. -2916-2919 of 2008 and 2629 of 2006. Dr. R. G. Padla, M. Asha G. Nair, M. P. S. Tomar, Savitri pandey, Subhash Kaushik, D. S. Mahra, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, B. V. Balaram Das, Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad, V.

Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad, Revathy Raghavan, Shabu Sreedharan, Noor Mohammed, M. K. Michael, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Bindu K. Nair, MIS. Lawyer's Knit & Co. , G. Prakash, Haris Beeran, R. S. Jena, s. Marsook and R. Sasiprabhu for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Civil Appeal No. 6447 of 2001 has been taken up for hearing along with five other matters, namely, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15469 of 2005, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16573 of 2006, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20260 of 2004, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8661 of 2004 and Civil Appeal No. 2629 of 2006.. C.. li the said matters are directed against orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on Revision Petitions filed from orders passed by the State Commission, Kerala, in appeal REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONI;::R v. 771 from orders passed by the District Forum.

All of them Involve common question of law and fact and have thus been taken up together for hearing and final disposal. 2. Of the five matters, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos, 20260 of2004 and Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6661of2004 8 have been filed against order dated 30. 7. 2002 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the National Commission') dismissing the Revision Petitions filed by the Regloni:ll Provident Fund Commissioner for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition. Both the Revision Petitions were dismissed on the ground that the delay had not been sufficiently explained. Though in these two Special Leave Petitions it is the order rejecting the Revision Petitions on ground of delay that is involved, ultimately, it is the order of the State Commission allowing the claim of the respondents concerned which is the subject matter of all thesE:i ... _ ... ;;five matters.

Furthermore, the effect of the orders passed by the National Commission in all these five matters Is the same in respect of the different petitioners before the District Forum and it is their claim which has been upheld right through up to the National Commission. 3. Leave is accordingly granted in the Special Leave Petitions and all the appeals are taken up for hearing together. 4. For the sake of convenience the facts relating to Civil Appeal No. 6447/2001 are taken Into for consideration In order ... ~ to decide the common issues in these matters, 5. The respondent Bhavani was a worker in Cashew Factory No. Ill (Naduvathoor) owned and managed by the Kerala . State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, Kollam and i according to her she retired from service on 31. 12. 1995 on ' attaining 60 years of age. Bhavanl was a member of the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1971, ~ and was making contribution to the Scheme.

In her service records maintained by the company her d ; Reg. ional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi . D... [2000 (1) sec 98], wherein in relation to the operation of the Consumer Protection Act to the Employees' Provident Fund Schemes it was held as follows: "A perusal of the Scheme clearly and unambiguously indicates that it is a 'service' within the meaning of Section ~. ' , . 2(1)(o) and the member a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1 )(d) of the Act. It is, therefore, without any substance to urge that the services under the Scheme are ,:1, ,rendered tree of charge and, therefore, the Scheme is not a 'service' under the Act. Both the State as well as the National Commission have dealt with this aspect in detail and ·rightly come to the conclusion that the Act was · applicable in the case of the Scheme on the ground that · its member was a 'consumer' under Section 2(1 )(d) and the Scheme was a 'service' under Section 2(1}(o}. " . ~. ~ 22.

Several other earlier decisions were also referred to. where a sim'ilar view has been expressed. 23. We are not also able to appreciate Dr. Padia's submission that the cases of the respondents should not be considered as they had applied at the fag end of their careers for correction of their dates of birth in the appellant's records, which practice had been strongly discouraged by this Court The aforesaid principle cannot apply to the case of the respondents as their dates ofbirth had been correctly recorded Fin the records ofthe company, including the respondents' service - ~ records,. on the basis whereof the. y had retired from the company's services. 24. ·We, therefore, have no hesitation in upholding the orders passed by the National Commission. All the six appeals filed by the Region. al Provident Fund Commissioner are accordingly dismissed. ~'» 25.. There will, however, be no order as to costs. K. K. T. Appeals dismissed