REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND vs GOMATHY

B.K.Taimni, Member

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum and appellant before the State Commission. Having lost out before both the Forums, this revision petition has been filed by him. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant was working as a cashew worker with the Industrial Co-operative Society, Eravipuram. There is no dispute she was contributing towards EPF. After retirement on 31.12.1995, when she applied for pension under the terms of the scheme, it was disallowed on two grounds - one that the complainant had attained age of 60 years in 1991 as per their record and the complainant was not entitled to the benefit under Pension Scheme as this scheme came into force from 16.11.1995 and two that the complainant never opted for the pension scheme. There is no dispute that the complainant was contributing towards EDF upto 31.12.1995. All these points were raised before the District Forum also where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging deficiency in rendering services. The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint. An appeal against this order filed by the petitioner was dismissed, hence this revision petition. Same points have been raised before us. They have been very ably discussed by the District Forum in its order. State Commission affirmed the order by a detailed order. Neither any new point or law point has been raised before us nor any jurisdiction error pointed before us to call for our interference in the well reasoned order of the State Commission. This revision petition has no merit, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.