IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdictional error - Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Provident Fund Organisation”), Opposite Party challenging the Order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 471 of 2013. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dated 04.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 325/2009 whereby, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to pay monthly pension of Rs.448/- w.e.f. 01.07.2008 with arrears alongwith interest @6% p.a. from 01.07.2008 till the date of payment together with cost of Rs.1500/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had joined as a worker at Rajan Cashew Company in the year 1996. Her PF A/c No. was KR/12285C/466. After rendering service for about 10 years, she left the service in 2008. The Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation sanctioned her monthly pension of Rs.46/-. It is the case of the Complainant that like other co-worker, who are getting monthly pension of Rs.635/-, although she is also eligible for monthly pension of Rs.635/- yet the Opposite Party Organisation has wrongly sanctioned her monthly pension of Rs.874/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation, a Complaint was filed before the District Forum.

3. Upon notice, by filing its Written Version, the Provident Fund Organisation contested the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant had non-contributory period of 2829 days and therefore, her pensionable service was of 2 years 6 months 15 days, which was rounded off to 3 years. These non-contributory periods were not counted for pension benefits. As per EPF Scheme, 1995, her monthly pension was calculated to be Rs.46/- per month which is being released every month. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and it was prayed that Complaint be dismissed.

4. On analysis of the evidence adduced by the Parties before it, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint by observing as under:—

“....In this case there is no dispute that the complaint entered into PF service in 11/3/1998 and left service on 30/6/2008. The dispute is with regard to pensionable service and pensionable salary.

According to the complainant, the pensionable service is 10 years, 3 months and 19 days which is rounded to 10 years. Opposite party 1 contended that the complainant has only 2 years 6 months and 15 days pensionable service. The Point to be determined is what is the pensionable service of the complainant Ext.D1 and D4 show that the complainant worked in all the 10 years of her service and paid contribution throughout her service. According to opposite party 1 the complainant had non-working and non-contributory period of 2829 days. Eligible and permitted leave, holidays, break of service due to the reason beyond the control of employee are also added to the non-working and non-contributory period. As a cashew industry is seasonal industry, there will be seasonal breaks in employment. The employee is not responsible for this break. Service is to be calculated in the unit of years and not in the unit of days or months. Determination of pensionable service also indended to calculate in the unit of years. As a welfare legislation, the provisions should be interpreted in favour of the employee. The interpretation of the opposite party regarding break is incorrect an illegal. More over PW2 the factory manager admitted that the complainant has 10 years pensionable service and there was no break in service. So the pensionable service of the complain