About Me

My photo
Lawyer Practising at Supreme Court of India. Court Experience: Criminal, Civil & PIL (related to Property, Tax, Custom & Duties, MVAC, insurance, I.P.R., Copyrights & Trademarks, Partnerships, Labour Disputes, etc.) Socio-Legal: Child Rights, Mid Day Meal Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Women Rights, Against Female Foeticide, P.R.Is, Bonded Labour, Child labour, Child marriage, Domestic violence, Legal Literacy, HIV/AIDS, etc. Worked for Legal Aid/Advise/Awareness/Training/Empowerment/Interventions/Training & Sensitisation.

Contact Me

+91 9971049936, +91 9312079439
Email: adv.kamal.kr.pandey@gmail.com

Friday, April 25, 2008

Now, you can take PF grievance to consumer court: SC

NEW DELHI: In an important judgment that will ensure employees get pension benefits from provident fund authorities, the Supreme Court has ruled that such organisations come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and can be held accountable for deficiency of service. A bench comprising Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice VS Sirpurkar rejected the plea of regional provident fund commissioner of Kerala that employees were not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 1986, as it was not rendering any service free of charge. It had also said when a master and servant relationship existed, the CPA would not apply to either of them. However, Justice Kabir, writing the verdict, said: “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 CPA.” The court said the relationship between employees and PF organisation is not that of a master and servant as rendering free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal service was absent in such case. The court, deciding six cases on similar issue, said employees come under the definition of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CPA. By becoming a member of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to it, they were availing of the services rendered by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for implementation of the scheme. The case pertained to one Bhavani, who was a worker in Cashew Factory owned by Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation, Kollam. She retired on December 31, 1995, on attaining 60 years of age. Bhavani was a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and was making contribution to the scheme. Though she was eligible for pension, it was not ordered by the Regional PF Commissioner. Aggrieved by the refusal of the authorities to release pension, Bhavani filed an application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam, seeking grant of pension from the date of her retirement. It was contested by PF authorities on the ground that the CPA, 1986, would not apply to a claim made under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Misc Provisions Act, 1952 and she was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act. The district forum, state commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had dismissed the plea of PF authorities, after which it came to the apex court.
24 Apr, 2008, 0800 hrs IST,Sanjay K Singh, TNNTHE ECONOMIC TIMES

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment