Laws laid down by Supreme Court in Provident Fund matters
Consumer towards Provident Fund Commission
RPFC V. Shiv Kumar Joshi, 2000
AIR (SC)331 : 2000 I LL J 552 : 2000(96) FJR 33 : 2000 I LL N 323 : 2000 LIC
232 : 2000 I CLR 2115 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 37 (SC.2J)
It has been held that it is rendering of service for consideration as defined
in the Consumer Protection Act. The definition of “consumer” is not
exhaustive and section 2(i)(o) exempts only such services as are rendered free
of charge or under a contract of personal service. The commissioners under the
said Act give statutory service on payment of administrative charges which are
levied and recoverable by the commissioner for payment of services rendered by
the commissioner and the ancilliary staff and they are required to invest the
contributions to the Employees Provident Fund like any other banker or
financial institution to earn interest and to credit the interest to the
subscribers account at such rate as may be determined by the Central Govt. In
relation with Central Board .
Another related cases are :-
i) Kamlesh Vohra V. Central
Provident Fund Commissioner & ors.1993 CPJ 232 (Delhi State Commission)
!!)Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V Bhavani SC(CP) p 563 decided on 22nd April 2008, held
“ that non payment of dues to the complainants[number of cases of similar nature on the similar point of law clubbed together ] under Employees Pension Schemes amounts to deficiency in services .By becoming a member of the employees family pension scheme and contributing to the same ,one avails services rendered under section 2(1)(O) by the commission for implementing the scheme,hence is a consumer under section 2 ( 1 ) (d) of the act.” Supreme court has not agreed with the plea taken by Regional Provident Fund Commission that provident fund commission is not a service provider it being a statutary body
Supportive Judgments-Jagdish singh v State bank of Patiala and others, Decided on 27th Feb.2008 by Punjab SCDRC in appeal no 953 of 2006 p 633,CTJ