Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.100742/2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPF, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LEGAL] BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICES, NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI – 580 025 …PETITIONER [BY SRI. P.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE]
AND:
MR. GOPAL S HEBBALLI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O. MR. SHAKNARAPPA HEBBALLI PADADAYYAN HAKKAL NEAR KALYAN MANTAP BEHIND NEW ENGLIGH HIGH SCHOOL OLD HUBBALLI – 580 024 …RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. S.L. MATTI, ADVOCATE]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE CONSUMER FORUM UNDER THE
2 CONSUMERS PROTECTION ACT CANNOT SIT IN APPEAL OVER THE QUANTUM OF PENSION AS COMPUTED BY THE PETITIONER ORGANIZATION AS THE SAME WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF APPEAL AND THE FORUM IS NOT AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY EITHER UNDER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISC. PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to decide on the quantum of pension determined when there is an appellate remedy under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [for short, ‘the EPF & M Act’].
The petitioner’s case is that the respondent’s grievance before the District Consumer Forum, Dharwad is not because the retirement benefits have not been paid but allegedly because the quantum of pension computed is not according to the relevant Scheme. If the respondent could justify his case that
3 there is an error in the computation of the pension under the applicable Scheme, the respondent must necessarily avail the appellate remedy under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 [for short, ‘the Scheme’] and in view of the terms of the Scheme, the respondent’s remedy would be under the EPF & M Act. If the respondent has to avail the appellate remedy as aforesaid, the District Consumer Forum cannot exercise jurisdiction.
In continuation of this submission, Sri. P.V. Gunjal submits that in a number of matters, these objections are taken and are dealt with perfunctorily by the District Consumer Forum because of its certain earlier orders without considering the import of the specific defence in the circumstances as stated above; the error, even if any, in the computation of pension would not be deficiency in service entailing a right to
4 avail the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
On careful consideration of these submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of, and is disposed of accordingly, with liberty to the petitioner to file its statement of objections taking specific defence as regards the maintainability of the respondent’s complaint before the District Consumer Forum including the defence as to the maintainability and the District Consumer Forum is called upon to consider the petitioner’s case against maintainability of the complaint and dispose of the same by a detailed order after due opportunity to the parties. Further, the District Consumer Forum must decide on the question of maintainability in the event such defence is taken by the petitioner at the first instance before the complaint is decided on merits.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A. No.3/2021 does not survive for consideration and hence stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE
AN/-