The pensionable service should include the entire period of service for which contributions have been received or are receivable, and the employee should not suffer due to the default of the employer in remitting contributions to the provident fund office.

ORDER

Justice V.K. Jain Presiding Member (Oral)—The respondent/complainant who was working as a cashew worker on the daily wag basis from 1993 and was contributing to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme since 1986, superannuated on 31.12.2009 attaining the age of 58 years. He was granted a monthly pension of Rs. 117/- w.e.f. 11.5.2009. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint claiming that he was entitled to a monthly pension of Rs. 955/- along with other benefits.

2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner. It was stated in the reply filed by the petitioner before the District Forum that the complainant joined the EPF Scheme only on 11.5.1997. It was further stated that though he rendered service in the Scheme from 11.5.1997 to 11.5.2009, i.e., for 11 years, 11 months and 29 days, his pensionable service was only 3 years, 5 months and 23 days. The aforesaid pensionable service was worked out by deducting the non-contributory period of 3106 days.

3. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.11.2013 directed the petitioner to recalculate the pension of the complainant taking his pensionable service to be 12 years. Compensation quantified at Rs. 1500/- and cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded to him.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order 29.9.2015, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5. It is not in dispute that the complainant was governed by the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the pension of the complainant was to be calculated in terms of para 12 (2) of the aforesaid Scheme which reads as under:-

"12. Monthly Members Pension - (1) A member shall be entitled to -

2. In the case of a new entrant, the amount of monthly superannuation pension or early pension, as the case may be, shall be computed in accordance with the following factors, namely :-

Monthly member's pensionable = Pensionable salary x pensionable service 70"

6. The calculation made by the petitioner shows that the pensionable service of the complainant was taken to be three years though it was noted that his service under Employees' Pension Scheme 1995, was 11 years, 11 months and 29 days. The non-contributory period in Employees' Pension Scheme 1995, was recorded 3106 days while making the said calculation. It is apparent from the above referred calculation that the pensionable service of the complainant was reduced by 3106 days on account of the contribution having not been received from his employer for the aforesaid period.

7. The term non-contributory service has been defined in Para 2 (x) whereas the term Pensionable Service has been defined in Para 2 (xv) of the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995, which reads as under:-

"2(x) "Non-contributory service" is the period of "actual service" rendered by a member for which no contribution to the "Employees' Pension Fund" has been [received or are receivable]"

2(xv) "pensionable service" means the service rendered by the member for which contributions have been [received or are receivable]"

It is quite evident to us from a bare perusal of the above-referred provisions of the Scheme that the Pensionable Scheme would include the entire period of service rendered by a member for which either contributions have been received or are receivable. In a case where the contributions have not been remitted by the concerned employer to the Provident Fund Commissioner, such contributions would be the contributions which are receivable in terms of Para 2 (x) of the Scheme. If the employer did not remit either the contribution deducted from the salary of the employee and/or its own contribution to the provident fund office, it is for the EPF Office to take appropriate actio