IMPORTANT POINT
Where a person has not quantified minimum period of service for eligibility to superannuation fund, Consumer Forum cannot order payment on equitable ground as to vires of the Rule of its eligibility.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 15 - Limitation of 30 days to file appeal against order of District Forum - Whether to run from date of order or from the date on which certified copy is supplied to consumer?(the later) - Case Law discussed.(Para 8)
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(b) and(c)(d) and(e) Complainant, complaint, consumer and consumer disputes - Complaint by an employee against employer for non payment out of superannuation fund - Whether maintainable?(Yes) - Whether complainant is a consumer vis-a-vis applicants?(yes) - Case Law Reviewed.
       Held: From the foregoing observations of the Supreme Court in the case law apparently relied upon by the Forum below, the principle that clearly emerges is that the administrative charges paid even though by the employer, is to be treated as the consideration for the service under the scheme and on this basis the employee is eligible to be considered as a 'Consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act:(Para 18)
       Hence the reasons, on the basis of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the P.F. dispute was maintainable before the Consumer Court, very much hold good in the present matter also and therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid Supreme Court Order we hold that the Complainant/Respondent is a 'Consumer' and the matter is maintainable before the Consumer Courts. We did consider the case laws cited by the Appellant on this point(Orders of the National Commission and Tamil Nadu State Commission). But we find that in both the orders it was decided at the threshold that matters being employer employee disputes are not maintainable before Consumer Court. 0n the other hand the Apex Court examined the matter in depth and passed a well-reasoned Order deciding in favour of maintainability. We go by the Supreme Court Order for reasons discussed above and hold that the matter is maintainable before the Consumer Court. The Forum's decision on this point is upheld, though on the basis of somewhat different reasoning. The Appellant's contention on this point against maintainability is rejected.(Para 20)
       (iii) Rules and Regulations of Superannuation Fund - Rule 13 Eligibility for superannuation Minimum service earlier of 20 years later reduced to 5 years - Complainant• having only 4 years of service - District Forum passing order of payment Whether correct?(No) - Whether Forum can examine vires of Rules?(No) Result - Order of Forum set aside Appeal allowed.(Paras 21 to 24)
       Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER

D. Karforma, Member- This is an appeal against the order dated 21.6.2000 passed by the District Forum, Howrah. The Respondent No.1 Sri Bhabatosh Mukherjee in the appeal matter was the Complainant before the Forum while the Appellants were the OP Nos. 1 & 2. The facts of the matter are briefly stated hereunder.

2. The complainant joined the Bally Jute Mill Unit of the OP2 on 9.8.1993 as Personnel Manager and became a member of the Company's Superannuation Fund from the date of his joining. Then on 7.4.1997 the OP 2 sold their Bally jute Unit to M/s. Ambika Multifibres Ltd. The latter declared suspension of work on 6-6-1997. As the suspension of work continued, the Complainant left the service on 5.7.1997. But he is yet to receive his dues of Rs.53,738.20 under the aforesaid superannuation Fund lying with OP-3 viz, L.I.C., as per a master policy taken by OP-1 with OP-3. As the Complainant failed to get his dues despite follow up, he approached the Forum with the prayer for a direction upon the OPs-1 & 2 to pay his dues of Rs.53,738.20 with interest.

2. OP-1 & OP-2 Contested the case by filing a written statement(W IS). The main Points taken by them were as under:

(i) The case is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum as the dispute is an Employer Employee dispute.

(ii) Ambika-Multi-Fibres Ltd. under whom the Complainant was serving at the time of leaving was not made a party.

(iii) As per the rules and regulations of the Superannuation Fund any employee leaving service before completion of 20 years is not entitled to any benefit under the said fund.

(iv) The benefits accruing to the employees of OPs 1&2 under the aforesaid Superannuation Fund are purely in the nature of pension payable after retirement and not earlier.

3. OP-3(L.I.C.) also filed a written version stating that they received contributions in respect of the Complainant during the financial years 1994-95, 95-96 and 96-97. But OP-3 did not receive any superannuation claim Form in respect of the Complainant. L.I.C. is in a position to settle the matter on receipt of the claim form from the Trustees of the Superannuation Fund, if the member is otherwise eligible as per provisions contained in the said Fund rules. This being the position, L.I.C. contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4. Upon hearing both the parties the District Forum passed an order directing OP-2 to submit the relevant claim form, duly filled in and signed, in respect of the Complainant's claim from the Superannuation Fund to OP-3 and directing OP-3 to make the payment of the accrued amount to the Complainant without any delay.

5. Aggrieved by the above order, OPs 1&2 have filed the present appeal before the State Commission praying for setting aside the impugned judgment. OP3 has not filed any separate appeal, but during, hearing, supported the Memo of Appeal.

6. In the Memo of Appeal, the Appellants have taken more or less the same points as taken by them in the Forum below. In particular the Appellants sought to emphasize the following grounds.

(i) The Forum does not have any jurisdiction over the matter in as much as the dispute is one between employer and employee and the Complainant is not a consumer vis-a-vis the Appellants.

(ii) The entire contribution towards the Superannuation Fund is borne by the employer and no amount is deducted from the employee's salary for this purpose.

(iii) The complainant left the service without completing the minimum period of 20 years of service for becoming eligible for any benefit under the Superannuation fund as stipulated in the rules which were duly accepted by the Complainant at the time of becoming a member of the Superannuation fund.

(iv) Any alleged irregularity of the rules framed under the Superannuation fund as pointed out by the Forum can not be examined by the Forum nor can any benefit be given to the complainant on the ground that the rules are allegedly irregular.

(v) The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in January 20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2004(2) CPR 94WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATAM.K. Basu, President; Smt. S. Majumder & Sri D. Karforma, MembersTrustee, M/ s. Birla Jute & Industries Ltd. & Anr. -AppellantsversusBhabatosh Mukherjee & Another -RespondentsS.C. Case No. 385/ A/2000Decided on 29-1-2004

IMPORTANT POINTWhere a person has not quantified minimum period of service for eligibility to superannuation fund, Consumer Forum cannot order payment on equitable ground as to vires of the Rule of its eligibility.

Cases Referred (5)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a person has not quantified minimum period of service for eligibility to superannuation fund, Consumer Forum cannot order payment on equitable ground as to vires of the Rule of its eligibility.