M.K. Abdulla Sona, Member—This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kollam in OP No. 222/2005 dated 4th September, 2008. The appellant is the opposite party. In short, the complainant who was a worker under the first opposite party retired from the factory on 31.12.2000 due to superannuation at the age of 58 years. The complainant was born in the year 1942 which is valid in documentary evidence. The complainant had entered into service on 1969 under the Karuna Cashew Factory having account No. KR1268/206. She joined in Employees Provident Fund on 1969. After the first opposite party became the owner of the cashew factory in the year 1991 when the complainant was employed her account number has been changed. The Complainant’s Provident Fund accumulation is not settled after she retired as KR 1268/1529. The second opposite party rejected the benefit of the pension on the plea that she had only a total service less than 10 years and she had attained 58 years on 1.4.1998. The complainant alleges that there is deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party.

The first opposite party remained absent and set ex parte.

2. The second opposite party contended