Skip to main content

Employee can't be denied PF due to transfer to another division: Apex consumer panel

An employee covered under the employees provident fund (EPF) act will not cease to enjoy the benefit merely on being transferred to another division of a organization, the apex consumer commission has ruled.

"Once an employee is transferred to another division within the organization, his coverage under the EPF Act is not suspended," the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) said.

A bench headed by Justice KS Chaudhari made the observation while upholding the orders of the Odisha state and district consumer fora which had directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) to pay the pension amount for GSN Reddy's service since 1981 with the Podagada and Kapur dam divisions till his death in 1987.

RPFC had contended that Reddy was not entitled to pension as there was a break in his membership under the EPF scheme when he was transferred from one division to another in November 1983.

The Odisha state commission had upheld a district forum's order directing the RPFC to pay the pension amount to the widow of the carpenter, GSN Reddy who had died in 1987 while in service.

Reddy's wife G Easwaramma had moved the district forum for payment of the pension amount that according to her, he was entitled to get.

The RPFC's argument was rejected by the NCDRC which said, "The contention of the petitioner (RPFC) that by transfer from one establishment to another establishment his (Reddy) membership got suspended does not have any force.

"In this case, it is a transfer from one division to another division within the same organisation, and by no stretch of imagination, it can be counted as a break."

The commission also noted that as per records submitted before it, Reddy had become a member of the fund with effect from July 31, 1983 and contribution to the provident fund was regularly made till his death in March 1987.

"It is held, therefore, that the state commission or the district forum have not committed any illegality or irregularity," the bench said.
Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-25/india/41445259_1_district-forum-pension-amount-epf-act

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more