Consumer Court Can’t Decide Issues Related to Pension & Gratuity: NCDRC
Posted Date: 10th August 2022
Relating to which Act: The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and The Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Type: Court updates – Title: Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy versus State Bank Of Hyderabad & Another – Case No.: Revision Petition 71/2013
Pertains to employers and employees
Relevance of this news: Karma Management Global Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd has been in the business of Payroll, Outsourcing, and Regulatory Compliances from its inception in 2004 and since then, has brought in a lot of efficiencies and technological upgradations with experts on its roll, to ease the hassles of Payroll Processing, Temp Staffing On-boarding, Regulatory and Payroll compliances by providing customized solutions to all its elite clients.
Karma Global maintains the establishment and vendor compliances including payroll compliances on a regular basis, month after month, which is diligently executed by well-trained staff on its rolls, and each client whose work is being done for establishment compliances has been given a dedicated key account owner who fulfills all the compliances promptly for its various clients
In the instance of pension and gratuity payments, Karma Global takes care of the relevant acts and rules by fulfilling the relative obligations in relation to registers and return filing with the authorities as its staff is well versed with all the nuances of the regulations as well as obligations.
Subject: Consumer Court Can’t Decide Issues Related to Pension & Gratuity: NCDRC
For greater details, appended below is the complete news item
Consumer Court Can’t Decide Issues Related to Pension & Gratuity: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum recently ruled that any disputes regarding withholding terminal benefits like gratuity or provident fund do not fall under the jurisdiction of consumer courts.
Presiding Member Dinesh Singh and Karuna Nand Bajpayee (Member) issued the order observing that issues related to terminal benefits as a whole should be adjudicated by the competent civil court or services tribunal.
The NCDRC made these observations while considering a revision moved by a complainant against orders passed by the District and State Commission.
The complainant was dismissed from his job at the bank as it was discovered that he secured an appointment in the reserved category by using a fake caste certificate. The complainant moved to the District Forum after the bank withheld his terminal benefits of gratuity and provident fund.
A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent bank contending that the petition is not maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
After the State and District Forum dismissed his plea, the complainant moved to the NCDRC where the Commission opined that the Forums below should have considered the issue of jurisdiction before considering the petition on merits.
As per the court, any grievance regarding withholding the bank’s contribution to gratuity or provident fund is an issue that has to be adjudicated upon by the civil court or competent tribunal.
Therefore, the NCDRC set aside the orders passed by the District and State Tribunal and gave liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate court or tribunal.
Title: Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy versus State Bank Of Hyderabad & Another
Case No.: Revision Petition 71/2013