REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs G.Eswaramma

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.

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. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that G.S.N. Reddy was first working in Podagada Dam Division since 1981, but since the said establishment was covered under the EPF Act from 31.07.83 and the deceased employee was transferred to another establishment on 9.11.83, he remained covered under the EPF Act for a period of three months and 9 days only. He was transferred to Kapur Dam Division when he joined on 11.11.83 but the said establishment was not covered under the EPF Act. Kapur Dam Division was covered under the EPF Act from 30.11.86 and hence the deceased who died on 07.03.87 was covered at the new establishment for three months and 6 days only. In this way, the deceased remained covered under the EPF Act for 6 months 15 days only, which works out to be less than one year and hence he was not entitled for the grant of pension in accordance with provisions of Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971. Learned counsel argued that the said provision had been amended with effect from 1.04.88 and now this period has been reduced from one year to 3 months, but at the time of death of G.S.N. Reddy, the period was one year only. He further stated that the order passed by the District Forum, in which they observed that late G.S.N. Reddy had completed more than two years of reasonable service and is entitled for benefits under the relevant rules, does not reflect a correct appreciation of facts.

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.

LEARNED counsel for respondent no.2, Executive Engineer, Podagada Dam Division has also drawn our attention to clause 6 of 1971 Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ''Scheme '') saying that once a person becomes a member of the family pension fund, he does not lose his membership on being transferred to another establishment. In the present case, the entire Provident Fund for the whole period, i.e., from August 1983 to December 1986 have already been deposited by respondent no. 2 and this fact had been admitted by the petitioner in their revision petition as well. He further stated that clause 3 of the Scheme read with clause 6 makes it clear that the employee did not lose the membership of the scheme on his transfer. In the reply, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the word ''transfer '' had not been included in proviso to clause 6 of the Scheme and hence break in membership of the family pension fund after being transferred to another establishment shall not allow him to continue as a member of family pension fund.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

IT is an admitted case of parties that husband of complainant late G.S.N. Reddy was appointed as work-charged carpenter and joined Podagada Dam Division on 18.07.81 and then, he joined the Kapur Dam Division with effect from 11.11.83. It is also admitted that he died on 7.3.87. The case of the petitioner is this that there was deduction of provident fund dues for only 3 months 9 days in the first establishment, and 3 months 6 days in the second establishment and hence the total period comes out to 6 months 15 days, which being less than one year, the complainant is not entitled to pension under the 1971 Scheme. However, this version is quite contrary to facts as per detailed reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, Executive Engineer, Podagada Dam Division. It has been clarified that late G.S.N. Reddy worked in Podagada Dam Division from 18.07.81 till 10.11.83 and then he was transferred to Kapur Dam Division. The said establishment was not covered under the provisions of EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 at that time. Subsequently, vide order no. 8548 dated 27.05.86 of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar, the Podagada Dam Division came under the purview of the Act with effect from August 1983 and allotted code No. OR/3156 with effect from August 1986. Both the employees '' share and employer ''s share used to be recovered and deposited regularly before the RPFC, Orissa. However, regarding deposit of arrears for the pre-discovery period, i.e., August 1983 to July 1986, the RPFC Orissa waived of the deposit of employees '' share of the staff of Podagada Dam Division vide order dated 11/08/47 dated 21.10.87. Accordingly, the employer ''s share only for the period August 1983 to July 1986 was deposited with the RPFC. At that time, the share for late G.S.N. Reddy was not deposited with RPFC as he had already been transferred to Kapur Dam Division. Kapur Dam Division came under the purview of the EPF Scheme from Nov. 1986 as per letter number 3351 dated 18.07.87 from RPFC Orissa and was given code number OR/3244. EPF contribution for the period December 1986 upto 7.3.87 for late G.S.N. Reddy was deducted by Kapur Dam Division and was deposited with RPFC Orissa. Subsequently, Kapur Dam Division was merged with Podagada Dam Division and all record of late G.S.N. Reddy were transferred to it. As per the decision taken by Dy. General Manager (Finance), the dues pertaining to the period from August 1983 to Nov. 1986 of late G.S.N. Reddy were deposited with the EPF Authority to finalise the issue. A plea was also made before the District Forum accordingly and finally vide order dated 29.03.2004, the District Forum decided the case with a direction to regularise the matter, by collecting the information/documents from OP No. 2, Podagada Dam Division, for payment of provident fund and also sanction of pension in favour of the complainant. According to relevant Act and Rules. It is very clear, therefore, that the deceased employee became a member of the Family Pension Fund with effect from 31.07.83 and was given EPF Account OR 3156/327 in the Podagada Dam Division. Once an employee is transferred to another division within the organisation, his coverage under the Act is not suspended. It is very clear from the factual position narrated by respondent no. 2 that late G.S.N. Reddy became a Member of the Fund with effect from 31.07.83 and the contribution to Provident Fund was regularly made till his death in March 1987. The contention of the petitioner that by transfer from one establishment to another establishment his membership got suspended does not have any force. In this case, it is a transfer from one division to another division within the same organisation, and by no stretch of imagination, it can be counted as break as stated in clause 6 of the Scheme. It is held, therefore, that the State Commission or the District Forum have not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned orders in favour of the complainant. It was the duty of the petitioner to collect the necessary information and documents from the office of OP No. 2 Podagada Dam Division and then pass orders for the release of Provident Fund dues and sanction of pension in accordance with relevant Act and Rules. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order is upheld with no order as costs.