Case nº Revision Petition No. 706 Of 2017, (Against the Order dated 24/10/2016 in Appeal No. 500/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra) of NCDRC Cases, May 22, 2017 (case Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. Vs Gulabrao & Ors.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Advocate with Mr. Vipin Soni, EO of the Petitioners
PresidentMr. D.K. Jain,President and Mrs. M. Shreesha,Member
Resolution DateMay 22, 2017
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases


  1. By this Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the Provident Fund Commissioner and its Associate, Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 in the Complaint under the Act, call in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 24.10.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. A/08/500. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein, as barred by limitation as well as on merits.

  2. The Appeal had been filed by the Petitioners against the order dated 08.03.2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bhandara (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 36 of 2005. By the said order, the District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by Respondents No. 1 to 11, the Complainants, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioners herein, in not paying the pension, had directed Respondents No. 12 and 13/Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 to get the requisite Form 10-D and other documents completed from the Complainants; send the same to the Petitioners for extending the pensionary benefits to the Complainants; and pay to each of the Complainants `500/- towards physical and mental harassment and `500/- as litigation costs, within one month from the date of the said order. Besides, the Petitioners were also directed to extend the pensionary benefits to the Complainants from 16.11.1995, within three months of receipt of the said documents.

  3. The Complaint came to be filed under the following circumstances:

    3.1 While working in the Pohra Sillimanite Mine, Opposite Party No.1, a mine of Maharashtra State Mining Corporation, Opposite Party No.2, since the year 1976 till the date of their voluntary retirement in the year 1995, the Complainants were members of the Provident Fund Scheme, under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Upon introduction of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, under the Provident Fund Scheme, on 16.11.1995, the employees who had retired on or before 01.04.1993 and had completed at least 10 years were entitled to pension. As the Complainants had taken voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 1995 and had completed more than ten years service...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT