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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more