National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Maharashtra State Electricity Board ... vs Madhukar Vithal Kale on 21 October, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 310 OF 2009 (From the order dated 02.08.2008 in First Appeal No. 896/2007 @ Misc. Appln. No. 1281 of 2007 of the State Commission, MAHARASHTRA) MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Through its : 1. The Executive Engineer O & M Division Sonegirwadi, Yeshwant Nagar Wai, Tal Wai, Dist. Satara MAHARASHTRA 2. The Assistant Engineer Wai Sub-Division Kisanwir Chowk Wai, Tal Wai, Dist. Satara MAHARASHTRA 3. The Secretary Maharashtra State Electricity Holding Co. Ltd. Provident Fund Trust Through Joint Accountant (Provident Fund) Estrella Batteries Extension Building Dharavi Road Matunga MUMBAI - 400 019 Petitioners Vs. MADHUKAR VITHAL KALE (since deceased) Through LRs & Representatives 1. Smt. Mandakini Madhukar Kale R/o 108/B, Vyankat Purepeth Divekar Colony, Plot No. 13 Tal & Distt. Satara MAHARASHTRA 2. Hemant Madhukar Kale R/o 108/B, Vyankat Purepeth Divekar Colony, Plot No. 13 Tal & Distt. Satara MAHARASHTRA 3. Shirish Madhukar Kale R/o 108/B, Vyankat Purepeth Divekar Colony, Plot No. 13 Tal & Distt. Satara MAHARASHTRA 4. Sou. Savita Sanjay Deshpande R/o 108/B, Vyankat Purepeth Divekar Colony, Plot No. 13 Tal & Distt. Satara MAHARASHTRA Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Petitioner: MR. BRAJESH PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR MR. AJIT S. BHASME, ADVOCATE Dated 21st October, 2009 ORDER
JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH There is delay of about 85 days in preferring revision petition beyond the prescribed period of limitation for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed. The reasons assigned as usual in case of Government organisations are, the procedural delays in taking a decision in the matter. For the reasons stated in the application, we hereby condone the delay.
Brief facts are that Madhukar Vithal Kale, respondent deceased was appointed Line Helper on 21.06.1966. He took usual promotion and was made to retire on 12.08.2002 by employer holding that his Date of Birth was 01.07.1937. Consequently, he was not paid arrears of Provident Fund.
Aggrieved, respondent took recourse to consumer grievance redressal agency, filing a compliant which was dismissed.
However, on remand, the District Forum which was in session of the proceeding, on consideration of pleadings of the parties, accepted complaint, directing Maharashtra State Electricity Board (now known as MSEDCL) to pay arrears of Provident Fund along-with interest @ 12% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 3,500/- and also litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- came to be awarded by District Forum.
The aforesaid finding came to be challenged by MSEDCL, the petitioner herein, and State Commission too, concurring with the finding of District forum holding that it was not permissible for the employer to agitate the issue after 35 years of service of the respondent, dismissed appeal summarily.
Against these findings of State Commission, the MSEDCL is in revision. Two vulnerable issues which need consideration, shorn of details, are as to whether the retireal benefits including that of Provident Fund for which the employer is the custodian and acting as Trust can be withheld. Secondly, as to whether the dispute between the employer and the employee, be it in the nature of payment of retiral benefits, was a consumer dispute for adjudication by the consumer fora. If core question about continuance of respondent in job beyond the cut-off date of retirement is answered upholding cause of respondent, the issue of legitimacy withholding of retiral benefits including that of Provident Fund goes in the background. The salient features of the case, however, need to be noticed with brevity.
The respondent was anticipating his retirement on 09.12.2002, the date of birth recorded in Service Book being 10.12.1942.
However, before respondent could superannuate from service, petitioner - authority began exercise for holding enquiry as to the date of birth of respondent and during enquiry it came to their knowledge that the date of birth as recorded in School Leaving Certificate was on 01.07.1937 which qualifies his superannuation on 30.06.1997 on completion of 60 years of service. The respondent, accordingly, was made to retire on 12.08.2002 and the accumulation of his provident fund was withheld. The State Commission in back drop of these events held that when respondent was to superannuate from service, it was not permissible for employer to make an enquiry at the fag end of tenure of service and should have preferred to give credence to date of birth as recorded in Service Book maintained by the office.
However, validity of action of the employer in getting the respondent superannuate from service on strength of date of birth as recorded in School Leaving Certificate would go in the back ground in view of significance of the other issue involved. Undisputedly, since respondent had been employee of petitioner authority, this being a dispute between the employer and the employee, would not fall within the purview of service to attract beneficial provisions incorporated under Consumer Protection Act.
The judicial precedence of the National Commission have cautioned us not to embark upon for adjudication in the matters which are not consumer dispute. We, accordingly, hold that since the respondent would not be covered under the definition of consumer under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the remedy does not lie before the consumer fora. The respondent, if aggrieved with the action of the petitioner authority, can agitate the issue before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. Resultantly, the revision petition succeeds on this score and the finding recorded by the State Commission is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
J (B.N.P. SINGH) PRESIDING MEMBER (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Dd/4