M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The complainants having failed in their attempt to get pension and other benefits, have come before this commission, as appellants.
(2.) The complainant by name Premavathy, was working as reeler in the 2nd opposite party mill, which was managed by its partners, opposite parties 3 and 4. The said Premavathy, joined in the PF scheme, and the subscription No. is tn/11974/112. The 2nd opposite party who had deducted the subscription also should have paid contribution, for which account is to be maintained by the 1st opposite party, viz. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
(3.) The 2nd opposite party mill was not functioning continuously, and there was lockout for some time, and therefore the complainant was unable to continue in service, submitted her resignation in 2003, accepted, paying only a sum of Rs.7500/- The employees, who were working like Premavathy had collected the PF amount from the 1st opposite party, and despite request, the 1st opposite party, who is bound to maintain the account, and who is bound to pay the amount under the law, failed to pay the amount, thereby committed deficiency in service. Therefore, each complainants are entitled to a sum of RS.75000/-, from the Provident fund account, as well as pension, since they have put in roughly 20 years of service. The non-settlement of the claim had caused mental agony, for which each complainants is entitled to RS.1 lakh. Thus pleading deficiency, consumer complaint was filed, for the total recovery of a sum of Rs.12,75,000/-, in addition to seeking direction for payment of monthly pension.;