National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vs Pandurang on 12 October, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2649 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PANDURANG S/O. Basappa Magal, R/O. Renuka Krupa, Behind IB Umashankar Nagar, Rabebennur-581115 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2650 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization,
Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHOLAPPA S/O. Devalappa Lamani, R/O. Govind Badavane Tanda, Post ranebennur-581115 Haveri ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2651 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PRABHAKAR S/O. KASHAPPA BEMBALGI, R/O. 12B, ANUGRUHA, 1ST MAIN SHIVAPURA COLONY, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030, DISTRICT-DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2652 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KESHAVA S/O. GUMMANNA KOTIAN, R/O. H.NO. 50, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2653 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PANDURANG ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2654 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TIRUPATHI S/O. YAMANAPPA BALEHOSUR, R/O. BEHIND ALAGUNDAGI CHAWL, UNKAL CROSS, HUBLI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2655 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MALLIKARJUNA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA BENAKANNAVAR, R/O. H.NO. 166, 2ND CROSS RADHAKRISHNA NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2656 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PANDURANG ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2657 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GANGADHAR S/O. GULAPPA MANAGOLI, R/O. ARUDHA NAGAR, ANANDA NAGAR ROAD, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2658 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PANDURANG ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2659 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. HEMARADDI S/O. Venkaraddi Masti, R/O. D.No. 35, Shanthnagar, Navanagar Hubli-580025 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2660 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Mallu S/O. Totaba Cougule, R/O. Padmavathy Colony, Ugar Budruk Tq. Athani, Belgaum ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2661 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PARUBAI W/O. Bapu Shinde, R/o. Kodani Chikkodi, Belgaum ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2662 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DAWALSAB S/O. BABUSAB NADAF, R/O. NIJAGUNI PLOT BINDAL, HUBLI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2663 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VENKATESH S/O. SEETARAM KULKARNI R/O. C/O. D.B. FERNANDIS INDRAPRASTA NAGAR, III CROSS ANANDA NAGAR ROAD, OLD HUBLI-580024 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2664 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MALLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA MANNAPUR, R/O. PLOT NO. 53, INDRAPRASTA NAGAR, II CROSS ANAND NAGAR ROAD, OLD HUBLI-580024 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2665 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GOPICHAND S/O. VENKATESH SAVSHER, R/O. GUDI ONI, CHANNA PETH, HUBLI-580024 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2666 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHIVLANAGAPPA S/O. PARAPPA HOOLIKATTI, R/O. H.NO. 24, NAGASHETTY KOPPA DODDA ONI, KESHAVAPUR, HUBLI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2667 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHRIPAD S/O. ASHWATH BHAT RAJPUROHIT, R/O. BIRADAR BUILDING PLOT NO. 1, SANMAN COLONY, B/H NEW BUS STAND, OLD HUBLI-580024 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2668 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KALLAPPA S/O. VITHAL KILASKAR, R/O.WAGHMODE CHAWAL NEAR DR. KHATIB'S HOUSE NAGASHETTY KOPPA, HUBLI-580023 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2669 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JAGANATH S/O. BHIMAPPA PALKAR, R/O. GOKUL ROAD, HOSUR, NEAR KEB OFFICE HUBLI-580030 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2670 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PARASHURAM S/O. YALLAPPA MEHARWADE, R/O. DALIBAR PETH, MEHARWADE CHAWL, OLD HUBLI-580030 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2671 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAJESAB S/O. PEERSAB NADAF, R/O. GANGADHARA NAGARA, PLOT NO. 11, GAMANAGATTI ROAD, NAVANAGARA, HUBLI-580025 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2672 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. V. PATTAR, R/O. H.NO. EWS 228, MANUNATH NAGARA,GOKUL ROAD HUBLI-580030 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2673 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ARUN S/O. PANDIT RAO DATE, R/O. H.NO. 13, RAJAJI NAGAR DEVANGPETH, HUBLI-580023 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2674 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHARANAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA PASARADA, R/O. BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, 9TH CROSS HAVERI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2675 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MAHALINGAPPA S/O. KALAVEERAPPA MASUR, R/O. BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, 3RD CROSS B-BLOCK HAVERI-581110 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2676 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LAXMAN S/O. MARTHANDA RAO CHINNAMULAGUNDA, R/O. VIDYANAGAR WEST, BEHIND LIC OFFICE HAVERI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2677 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHIVAYOGAYYA S/O. GADIGEYYA KUDALAMATH, R/O. BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, 7TH CROSS B-BLOCK HAVERI-581110 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2678 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHANNAYYA S/O. Girimallayya Hiremath, C/o. p. shivanna, D.no. 136, 1st Main 6th cross Metagalli, B.M. Shree nagar Mysore-570016 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2679 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GANESH S/O. DIDDARAMAPPA ARKASALI, R/O. AT POST AMARAGOL TAL. HUBLI DISTRICT-DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2680 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SRIKANTH S/O. PANDURANG BALEKUNDRI, R/O. C/O. URANKAR BUILDING SAMARTH NAGAR, 4TH CROSS SHIVAJINAGAR POST, BELAGAVI-590016 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2681 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PANDURANGASA S/O. BASAPPA MAGAL, R/O. RANUKA KRUPA, BEHIND IB UMASHANKAR NAGAR, RANEBENNUR-581115 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2682 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHIVAJI S/O. HANUMANTHRAO KHAIRE, R/O. KAMALAPURA, KAMATI ONI, DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2683 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAGHUPATHI S/O. RAMAKRISHNACHARYA UDAPI, R/O. 28/2, RAJESHWARI NO. 4, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD-580007 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2684 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LAKSHMAPPA S/O. BASAPPA, R/O. AT POST MAKANUR, TAL RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT-HAVERI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2685 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VISHNAPPA S/O. RAJAPPA MANE, R/O. JANATHA PLOT NO. 77, MICHIGAN COMPOUND DHARWAD-580006 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2686 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHASHIDHAR S/O. ANDANEPPA HOLEYANNAVAR, R/O. GURUSHIVANAND NILAYA, BEHIND P & T QUARTERS MASARI EXTN. GADAG ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2687 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VIRUPAXI S/O. SHIVAMRUTHY MAJAGI, R/O. MATTI PLOT NO. 15, NEAR APMC, MAHANTH NAGAR, BEHIND MURUGHAMATH, DHARWAD-580006 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2688 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VILAS S/O. DEVAPUTRAPPA BAGALKOTI, R/O. BASEL MISSION CHRUCH MISSION COMPOUND KARWAR ROAD, HUBLI-580020 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2689 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LAXMAN S/O. SHANKARAPPA TORVI, R/O. GOURI SHANKAR NILAYA LIG 54, GANDHI NAGARA, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2690 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ASHOK S/O. VENKATESH KULKARNI, R/O. GANESH KRUPA PATTAR BUILDING NEXT TO K.V.G. BANK, SAINAGAR HUBLI-580031 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2691 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SURESH S/O. DATTATREYA DANI, R/O. H.NO. 179, PRASHANT NAGARA, KRISHNAPUR, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI-580024 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2692 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BASALINGAIAH S/O. VEERABHADRAIAH R, R/O. H.NO. 77/6, SHUKRAVARA PETH, YALIGAR ONI, DHARWAD-580001 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2693 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAMESH Y. SHINDE S/O. YALLAPPA SHINDE, R/O. KURUBAR ONI, GOPANAKOPPA HUBLI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2694 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. CHANNAPPA LAKKIMARAD, R/O. H.NO. 42, ULAVI CHNNABASAVESHWARA COLONY, GOPANAKOPPA HUBLI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2695 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. FAKKIRAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA HIREHOLI, R/O. NEAR VEERBHADRAPPA TEMPLE, GOPANAKOPPA HUBLI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2696 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SATYAPPA S/O. TATOBA CHOUGALE, R/O. UGAR BUDRUK-5916319, TQ. ATJHANI, DISTRICT-BELGAUM ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2697 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PRAHLAD S/O. HANUMANT RAO KULKARNI, R/O. SAI RESIDENCY PLOT NO. 45, H.NO. 101, GF, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MANDIR, RAMA KRISHNA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580021 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2698 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PRAKSH S/O. SHAM RAO KULKARNI, R/O. SAI RESIDENCY PLOT NO. 45, H.NO. 101, GF, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MANDIR, RAMA KRISHNA NAGAR, 2ND CROSS GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580021 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2699 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BABA S/O. HANAMANTH BODAS, R/O. H.NO. 213, KALMESHWAR LANE,, ANAGOL, BELAGAVI-590006 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2700 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ANANTH S/O. GOPAL RAO SANGORAM, R/O. 540/11A, KEERTHI WADA COMPOUND ANAGOL Belgaum-590006 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2701 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUBHASH S/O. MALLAPPA DODDAMANI, R/O. SAUNDATTI ONI, UNKAL HUBLI-580031 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2702 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. NEELAGIRIYAPPA HADARAGERI, R/O. VEERPUR, P.O. UKKUND, TQ. RANEBENNURA, DISTRICT-HAVERI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2703 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 7/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Through Assistant Provident Fumd Commissioner, Regional Office Delhi (North), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi - 110 052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NINGAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA HUBBALLI, R/O. R.V. KULKARNI CHAWL, HOSUR, HUBLI-580021 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Puneet Garg, Advocate with Mr. Bhim Singh, SS For the Respondent :
Dated : 12 Oct 2017 ORDER
1. These 55 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Karnataka, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints under the Act, are directed against different orders, all dated 05.12.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 7 - 9, 385 - 392 & 394 - 396 of 2015, and 63 - 78, 80 - 85, 87 - 90, 322 - 325, 327, 329 - 331, & 648 - 654 of 2016. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein, questioning the correctness and legality of the orders, dated 27.11.2014, 30.01.2015, 29.04.2015, 19.05.2015, 23.07.2015, and 28.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Dharwad (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 175 - 177, 254 - 259, 261, 262, 267, 273 & 274 of 2014 and 71 - 73, 75, 70, 13 - 23, 29 - 33, 38, 35, 36, 34, 37, 137 - 140, 124, 126, 127, 132, 170 - 173, 175, 176 & 194 of 2015, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants. By the said orders, while partly allowing the Complaints, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to re-fix the pension payable to the Complainants, as per Rule 12(3)(a) & (b), 12(4)(a) & (b), read with Rule 10(2) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, by giving weightage of two years and past service benefit from the date of their retirement, and pay the balance amount of pension due to each of them within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said orders. Additionally, the District Forum had awarded compensation of ₹1,000/- and litigation costs, quantified at ₹1000/-, in favour of each of the Complainants, with a default stipulation of payment of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order/retirement/commencement of pension, till realization, in the event of failure on the part of the Petitioner to pay the said amounts within the stipulated period.
2. Although the Forums below have decided the Complaints/Appeals by different orders but the issue involved in all the Complaints being similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of ready reference, the first bunch of three Revision Petitions No. 2649 - 2651 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereunder are also taken from the said Revision Petitions.
3. The Complainants were the employees of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd., Harihar and MMTC, Bangalore. When the Petitioner introduced the pension Scheme, viz., Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, the Complainants opted to join the said Scheme. On introduction of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, w.e.f. 15.11.1995, the Complainants became the members of the 1995 Scheme and, accordingly, contributed in both the Schemes till their retirement. As per the new Scheme, the beneficiaries who would superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years or/and who had rendered 20 years' service, were to be given two years weightage, while calculating their pensionable service. Since the Respondents/Complainants had rendered more than 20 years' service, they were entitled for the same. However, the Petitioner, while calculating the pension amount payable to them, failed to take into consideration their past and present service and consequently did not follow the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Scheme. Aggrieved, the Complainants got issued legal notice to the Petitioner, which evoked no response. In the said background and left with no other option, the Complainants preferred their respective Complaints before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.
4. On consideration of the evidence adduced before it by the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the Complainants were entitled for the weightage of two years and, accordingly, while partly allowing the Complaints, issued the aforesaid directions to the Petitioner.
5. Being unsuccessful before the First Appellate Authority, viz., the State Commission, the Petitioner is before us in the present Revision Petitions.
6. It is pointed out by the office that these Revision Petitions are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is delay of 169 days in filing the same. The Petitioner has filed aforesaid Applications with the Revision Petitions for condonation of the said delay. The explanation furnished by the Petitioner in all the Applications is on identical lines. In paragraph 4 - 6 of the said Applications, the Petitioner has furnished the following crisp explanation:
"4. That the impugned order was passed on 05.12.2016 and the same was received only on 19.01.2017. Thereafter there occasioned some delay in arranging the file and the documents. The documents were forwarded by Regional Office, Kalburgi to Zonal Office vide letter dated 28.02.2017 which were thereafter forwarded to Regional Office, Delhi (South) vide letter dated 11.04.2017, which subsequently forwarded to Regional Office, Delhi (North) vide letter dated 25.04.2017.
5. That thereafter the legal opinion was sought from the panel counsel to challenge the impugned order and on receipt of the opinion vide email dated 08.05.2017, the permission was sought to challenge the impugned order. Accordingly, the present panel advocate was appointed vide letter dated 18.05.2017, who thereafter vide email dated 25.05.2017 made request for providing various documents and evidence in the case. However, vide email dated 21.06.2017, it was informed that the documents available with the department have already been forwarded (which are part of present petition). Accordingly, the panel advocate after ascertaining all the documents and approval from the department, filed the present revision petition at the earliest.
6. That the said delay in approaching this Hon'ble Commission is neither deliberate nor willful/wanton, but due to the aforesaid circumstances beyond control, as there are more than 50 appeals which were somehow connected and various common orders are passed which all are under challenge. Moreover, the delay occurred in preparation and finalization of the Revision Petition by the panel advocate. Hence it is just & necessary that this Hon'ble Commission passes an Order/Direction hereby condoning the delay of 120 days in the interest of justice."
(dates underlined for emphasis)
7. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of limitation.
8. In our opinion, the explanation furnished is absolutely unsatisfactory. Admittedly, the Petitioner had received copy of the orders, sought to be impugned, on 19.01.2017, and it was required to file the Revision Petitions within a period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation-14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, but the same have been filed only on 21.08.2017, i.e. with an inordinate delay of more than four months, over and above the said stipulated period. Further, after receipt of copy of the impugned orders on 19.01.2017, the Regional Office of the Petitioner at Kalburgi took more than one month in furnishing the same to the Zonal Office on 28.02.2017, which office took about one and a half months in sending the same to Regional Office, Delhi (South) on 11.04.2017. The Regional Office, Delhi (South) also took a fortnight in transmitting the copy of the impugned order to the Regional Office, Delhi (North) on 25.04.2017, which authority has ultimately filed the present Revision Petitions on behalf of the Petitioner. We fail to fathom any reason why in the first instance the copy of the impugned orders was not sent to the authority concerned, which was required to take necessary action in the matter and why the same was moving at snail pace one department to another, particularly after the period of 90 days had already expired. Pertinently, though on 08.05.2017 the legal opinion was sought by the Petitioner from its panel Advocate, but completion of necessary formalities/ documentation took over three months and ultimately Revision Petitions were filed only on 21.08.2017.
9. If the Petitioner was so concerned about the payment of extra few hundred rupees to the Pensioners as Pension by their respective employers, it ought to have pursued the cases with due diligence and alacrity, which evidently is not the case here. The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts. In Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under :
"28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts and the above observations as also the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 169 days in filing of the present Revision Petitions.
11. Even on merits, we find that the issue involved in these Revision Petitions already stands concluded by a catena of orders of this Commission, particularly by order dated 09.04.2013 in Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur Vs. Basappa Ningappa Kaltippi, Revision Petition No.784 of 2013, as well as by order dated 28.07.2014 in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bellary Vs. Mohammad Khasim, Revision Petition No. 2864 of 2014 & other connected matters. In Mohammad Khasim (supra) a Coordinate Bench of this Commission, on examination of the benevolent provisions of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, with reference to the earlier Schemes, viz., Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, has held that the Complainants would be entitled to the weightage of two years in terms of Sub-Para (2) of Para (10) of the 1995 Scheme and accordingly dismissed the Revision Petitions preferred by the Petitioner.
12. It is pertinent to note that a large number of Special Leave Petitions, preferred by the Petitioner against our earlier order dated 03.05.2013 in Revision Petition No. 1330 of 2013 and connected cases, have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 23.03.2015, leaving the question of law open to be decided in an appropriate case. Thus, the orders passed by the lower Fora in relation to a large number of similarly situated Pensioners having attained finality, non-grant of similar relief to the Respondents/Complainants in the computation of their pensionary benefits would not only create an avoidable anomaly, it will be discriminatory as well.
13. Consequently, the Revision Petitions are dismissed as miserably barred by limitation as well as on merits.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER