Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 245 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Shiv Kumar Joshi on 14 December, 1999

The Deputy General Manager Cpf. F.C.I. ... vs Kashmir Singh & Ors . on 13 April, 2015

In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, 2000 (8) SCC 98, the question which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the provisions of Consumer Protection Act can be invoked by a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme against the Provident Fund Commissioner. Analysing the meaning of the expressions 'service' and 'consumer', the Hon'ble Supreme Court hold that the services being rendered by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were 'service' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) and the members of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme were 'consumers' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Noticing that under para 30 of the Scheme, it was the responsibility of the Principal Employer to pay not only the contribution made by him but also the administrative charges which are a specified percentage of the pay of the employee, the Hon'ble Court was of the view that the Scheme was for a consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contention that since no part of the administrative charges is payable by the employee he could not be held to be a consumer. The Apex Court also observed in this regard that the administrative charges are in lieu of the membership of the employee and for the services rendered under the Scheme. It was also noticed in this regard that no service is rendered to the employer under the Scheme which is framed for the benefit of the employee. It was further held that since the definition of consumer under the Act includes not only the person who hires the services for consideration but also the beneficiaries for whose benefit such services are hired even if it is held that the administrative charges are being paid by the Central Government and no part of it is paid by the employees, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner, in running the Scheme, shall be deemed to have been availed by the Central Government for the benefit of the employees who would be treated as beneficiaries within the meaning of that word used in the meaning of consumer. Thus, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds the employees to be consumer of the Provident Fund Commissioner and not of his employer.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Jharkhand Th Dist Pro vs Dist Comsumer Forum.Palamau on 17 November, 2011

9. Learned counsel for the Respondents has cited an order dated-18.11.2010, passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3144 of 2003 (The State of Jharkhand through the District Provident Fund Officer, Palamau-versus-The District Consumer Forum, Palamau and others, wherein, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition of the State.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Mohan Lal Sethi (Lrs) vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 3 November, 2017

In so far as the employees' provident fund is concerned, copies of judgments, including those in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (supra) and State Bank of Mysore vs. S. K. Vidya & Anr. (supra) have been placed on record, as per which, the complainants have tried to show that the matters pertaining to the provident fund were covered under the category of consumer disputes.  However, before discussing the orders passed in these judgments, it is necessary to know whether the amount in question was deducted from the gratuity amount or from the provident fund dues.  It also requires to be ascertained whether the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 had already taken a decision on the application filed on behalf of the complainant before them, as stated in the memo of appeal filed by the OPs before the State Commission.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002

We may also note that duties and powers of the Comptroller and Auditor Generals have already been prescribed under the Comptroller and Auditor Generals (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971. We do not think it is necessary for us to refer this enactment for the decision of the present controversy. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi - (2000) 1 SCC 98 is clearly distinguishable as that was rendered on the interpretation of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder. Shiv Kumar Joshi was not a government employee.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

General Manager, Telecom District, ... vs Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, ... on 3 April, 2000

38. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Regional Provident fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98 : (AIR 2000 SC 331), while considering the scope of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, held that the statutory authority not invested with sovereign function while discharging its statutory func-
Kerala High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 8 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Punjab National Bank & 2 Ors. vs Rohit Malhotra on 10 April, 2024

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra) is clearly distinguishable as that was rendered on the interpretation of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder. In that case, Shiv Kumar Joshi was not an employee. Here Late Om Prakash was an employee of the Petitioner Bank and as such governed by the statutory rules applicable to their respective service and for the purpose of raising service dispute one would have to approach Industrial Tribunal or High Court but not the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sam Fine O Chem Limited vs Union Bank Of India on 12 April, 2013

So far as the judgment in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (Supra) we may note that the aforesaid judgment is based upon the interpretation of the definition of Consumer as it then existed. The definition of consumer was amended in the year 2003, which provided that the person who hired or availed services for commercial purposes would be excluded from the definition of consumer.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 28 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next