State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S. Lokanath vs Jyoti Ranjan Pattnaik on 31 January, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPI'TES. REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA, CUTTACK
(From an order istrict Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Rayagada in C.C. no. 293 of 2013)
S.Loknath,
S/o S.Kameswar, Presently working as
Principal, Gunupur College, Gunupur,
At/Po - Gunupur, Dist - Rayagada
Appellants
Vrs.
1. Jyoti Ranjan Pattnaik,
Lecturer in Political Science,
Gunupur College, Gunupur,
At/Po - Gunupur, Dist - Rayagada
... Respondent
2. President, Gunupur College, Gunupur,
At/Po - Gunupur, Dist - Rayagada
3. Asst.Commissioner, Employees Provident
Fund Organizatton, Court Peta, Berhampur,
Po/Ps - Berhampur, Dist - Ganjam
Proforma
Respondent
For the appellant : M/s D.K.Panda & Associates
For respondent no.1: In person
For respondent no.2: None
For respondent no. 3: M/s B. Nayak & Associates
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.N.BISWAL, PRESIDENT,
SHRI G.P.SAIrOO, MEMBER
AND
SMT.SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER
I
DATED THE 31"t JANUARY,2OLT
ORDER
JUSTICE R.N.BISWAL, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated o9.9.2oL4 passed by the District Forum, Rayagada in C.C.no- 293 of 2013 directing the appellant to act as per EPF & MP Act, 1952 and immediatbly open EPF account of respondent no. 1 and directing respondent no. 3 to visit the establishment of appellant and respondent no. 2 and to take necessary steps to open the EPF account of respondent no.1 and further directing them to pay Rs.10,000/- to respondent no. 1 unless the said orders are complied within four weeks of receipt of the order.
Appellant was opposite party no. 2, respondent no. 1 was complainant and respondent nos. 2 and 3 were opposite party nos. 1 and 3 respectively before the District Forum.
Respondent no.1 as complainant frled the aforesaid case stating v that he is an employee of Gunupur College, Gunupur and covered r*lr .I-""
I .{;:
under the protection of EPF and MP Act, t952. Appellant enrolled him under the EPF Scheme and used to deposit his (complainant) share in the Fund deducting the same from his salary. The Govt. sanctioned Block Grant to respondent no. 1 in the year 2OO9. But the said amount was not paid to him on the pretext that the EPF amount contributed to the Fund was adjusted from the Block Grant. His further case was that he was not provided with EPF number either by the appellant or by respondent no. 3. Hence, the case with prayer to direct the appellant and respondent nos. 2 and 3 to pay the Block Grant from 2/2009 to L2/2O1O along with interest at the rate of L2%o per annum and compensation and litigation expenses.
On being noticed, appellant and respondent no.2 entered appearance before the District Forum and f,rled version stating that respondent no. 1 was appointed as Lecturer in Political Science temporarily on adhoc basis for a period of 89 days on consolidated payment of remuneration vide office order no. 1488 dated 19.9.1995 till2.2.2OIO. and the appointment of the complainant was approved by the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswr vide office order no. 5329 dated 9.2.2OL1 for payment of full block grant w.e.f. L.2.2OO9.It was further stated in the written version that no amount was deducted from the salary of respondent no.l under the Scheme and they did not withhold the Block Grant amount of respondent no.l and that no EPF Scheme has been introduced in respect of ' Gunupur College.
lt fi i'r . Respondent no. 3 on being noticed appeared before the District
-1 Forum and filed written version stating that the establishment of t .'punupur College was covered under the EPF & Mp Act, 1952 w.e.f., 'h + 6.3.1982, but neither the statutory returns nor any deposit was made by appellant and respondent no.2. As such, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
After hearing the parties, tl.e District Forum passed the aforesaid. order, being aggrieved with which the appellant has preferred the present aPPeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 1, who appears in person.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no. 1 is not a 'consumer' aS defined under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. He further submits that the College is exempted from the EPOF fold as per Section 16(1) (b) of EPF & MP Act, L952.In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vrs. Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School and others. AIR 2OO7 (SCl 276. Accordingly, he prays to allow the aPPeal.
Section 16(1)(b) of the EPF Act, 1952 provides as under :-
.16(1) This Act shall not apply
-
(a) ...........
(b) To ang other establisltment belonging to or under tLrc control of the Central Gouemment or a State Gouernment i .l and uhose emploAees are entitled to the benefit of Irl, ' "' II I il t.lJ I contributory prouident fund or old age perLsion in l' accordance uitlt ang scheme or rule framed bg ttrc Central Gouernment or ttrc State Gouernment gouerning suchbenefits;"
Gunupur College being a recognised aided College is under the control of State Govt.. Moreover, the employees of the appellant are P.4 getting pension as per Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981. So as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Gunupur College is exempted from the EPF fold.
Moreover, respondent no.1 frled the Consumer Complaint with prayer to direct the appellant and respondent nos. 2 to pay him the Block Grant from February, 2OO9 to February, 2OLL. Admittedly, respondent no.l is working as a lecturer under appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 by rendering service to them and not vice versa. So, respondent no.l cannot be a consumer qua tJ'e appellant and respondent no.2.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No cost.
Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.
,(-
(il;;il'il;;;;i Member (G.P.Sahoof Member (Justice R.N.Btswal| President ,..-:.ii-:-'^:. - \\ ./"
' ,' rr.
- Jt,
\
',\