9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to claims under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. Determination of the correct date of birth for pension eligibility under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. 3. Jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to direct alteration of the date of birth in official records. Summary: Issue 1: Applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 The appellant contended that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, would not apply to claims made under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as the respondent was not a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act. The District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission rejected this argument, holding that the services rendered by the appellant did not fall within the exempted categories of Section 2(1)(o). The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is a "service giver" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) and the respondent is a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d)(ii). Issue 2: Determination of the Correct Date of Birth The appellant argued that the respondent's date of birth was 24.9.1932, making her ineligible for the 1995 Employees' Pension Scheme, which had a cut-off date of 1st April, 1993. The respondent claimed her date of birth was 31.12.1935, as recorded in her service records with the company. The District Forum found in favor of the respondent, accepting the company's records over the appellant's. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the respondent continued to work and contribute to the fund until 31.12.1995, and there was no explanation from the appellant for accepting contributions beyond 1992. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum The appellant contended that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to direct the alteration of the date of birth in official records. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the correct dates of birth were recorded in the company's records, which were used to determine the respondents' superannuation dates. The Court found the District Forum's reasoning sound and based on the materials on record. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the orders of the National Commission, dismissing all six appeals filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The Court confirmed that the respondents were entitled to the benefits of the 1995 Employees' Pension Scheme based on their dates of birth as recorded in the company's service records. The Court also affirmed the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to the case and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to direct the correction of the date of birth in official records. There was no order as to costs.
|
