Now, you can take PF grievance to Consumer Coury: SC

In an important judgment that will ensure employees get pension benefits from PF Authorities, the Suprme Court (SC) has ruled that such organizations come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and can be held accountable for deficiency of service.

A bench comprising Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice V. S.Sirpurkar rejected the plea of RPFC (Regional PF Commissioner) of Kerala that employees were not a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA) as it was not rendering any service free of charge. It had also said when a master and servant relationship existed, the CPA would not apply to either of them.

However, Justice Kabir writing the verdict, said RPFC, who is the person responsible for the working of the 1995 Pension Scheme, must be held to be a Service Giver within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the CPA. The Court said the relationship between the employees and the EPFO is not that of a master and servant as rendering free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal service was absent in such case.

The court, deciding six cases on similar issue, said employees come under the definition of consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CPA. By becoming a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and contributing to it, they were availing of the services rendered by the RPFC for implementation if the Scheme.

The case pertained to one Bhavani, who was a worker in Cashew Factory owned by Kerala State Cashew Decelopment Corporation, Kollam.

She retired on 31.12.1995 on attaining 60 years of age. Bhavani was a member of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and was making contribution to the Scheme. Though she was eligible for Pension, it was not ordered by the RPFC.

Aggrieved by the refusal of the authorities to release pension, Bhavani filed an application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam, seeking grant of pension from the date of the retirement. It was contested by PF Authorities on the ground that the CPA, 1986, would not be applied to a claimant under EPF & MP Act, 1952 and she was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act.

The District Forum, State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had dismissed the plea of PF Authorities, after which it came to the apex court.

From Desk of Dayanand Mangaonkar