JUDGMENT 1. This revision has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner against the judgment and order dated 31. 7.2002 whereby the District Forum ordered the revisionist to treat the petitioner Shri R. K. Rastogi, Members of the Family Pension Scheme from June 75 and to pay him pension in that capacity along with interest at the rate of 12% for the delay caused. 2. The order has been passed on 31.7.02. The revision against this order has been filed on 5.9.02. It was argued that it is beyond time. No limitations has been provided under the Act for revision. Secondly also it was argued by the learned representative for the revisionist Shri K. P Kala that the order of the learned Forum is without jurisdiction and there is no limitation for quashing an order without jurisdiction. 3. The main dispute in this case which cropped up is regarding the jurisdiction of the District Forum. 4. The complainant Shri R. K. Rastogi was employed as Deputy Personnel Manager in the BHEL, Haridwar. He joined service on 6.6.75 and retired on 24.11.96 after enjoying a service for 21 years, 5 months & 18 days, for clarity sake it is taken to be 21 years. He has alleged that he did not get his family pension on his retirement to which he was entitled under the Employee Pension scheme 1995. Then he filed a complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar impleading Executive Director, BHEL and the revisionist, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The complaint was filed on 1998. Both the opposite parties of the complaint contested the petition and it was decided on 26.6.01 on merits. In this order, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay the family pension to the complainant. No appeal or, revision was filed against this final order on merits and the order became conclusive. When order was not complied ,With, the complainant filed the execution application. That was contested with the objection that the family pension has been paid. In the grounds of revision as well, the revisionist has alleged that pension has been calculated to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 5311 - per month under the Employee Pension Scheme 1995 and hence the order stands totally complied. According to complainant, this is not correct calculation. He should get a pension at the rate of Rs. 1643/-. 5. 5311 - per month under the Employee Pension Scheme 1995 and hence the order stands totally complied. According to complainant, this is not correct calculation. He should get a pension at the rate of Rs. 1643/-. 5. Thus according to the revisionist, the final and contested order has been complied with. Pension has been fixed as Rs. 531/- whereas according to the complainant it should be Rs. 1643/-. Neither the Forum nor the State Commission will go into the calculations and will fix the pension of the complainant but naturally if the complainant has rendered 21 years of service, if on the directions of the revisionist or Forom, the complainant has deposited or on his behalf BHEL has deposited the entire contributions which ought to have been deposited by the complainant, his family pension should be fixed taking into consideration the entire deposits made by the complainant or his employer and after considering the entire length of service. The only dispute that remains is that of jurisdiction. It IS fantastic that up to the fixation of pension at the rate of Rs. 531/- per month, no dispute of jurisdiction was raised by the revisionist rather he emphatically told that the order of the forum has been finally complied with. But as soon as the Forum. passed the order to correctly fix it on a higher rate on the basis of the deposit of the complainant, the revisionist started to say that the Forum has got no jurisdiction. 6. It is settled principle of law that at the appeal or revision stage, the plea of jurisdiction can not be raised unless it has caused mis-carriage of justice. We are supported by the rulings reported in 1991 (1) CPJ Page 440, Dyanawax Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. BJS Rampur Jain College and 2002 (I) CRR-74 (NC) Jagdish Ram Gupta v. Gaziabad Development Authority. What mis-carriage of justice has been caused in this case has not been stated by the revisionist anywhere? What peculiar relief could have been given to the complainant had he filed this case 1?efore the Civil Court or a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court? The plea of jurisdiction should have been raised by the revisionist while he was contesting the complaint petition. What peculiar relief could have been given to the complainant had he filed this case 1?efore the Civil Court or a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court? The plea of jurisdiction should have been raised by the revisionist while he was contesting the complaint petition. In contesting the complaint before the learned Forum, he ought to have pressed that the plea be decided as a preliminary issue but when the judgment has become final, it does not lie in the mouth of the revisionist to agitate after 4 or 5 years that the Forum had got no jurisdiction. The complainant is already retired. How long a retired person shall live is known only to God and it is not proper for the revisionist to accelerate the death of the employ who has already retired. Now, coming to the dispute of jurisdiction as raised, Shir Kala has produced a number of rulings. These are: 2001 (1) CPR 35 (NC) , Laxman Kini A. v. The Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank; 1998 (1) CPR 44, Director/Addl. Director, U P State Employees' Group Insurance Directorate v. Smt. Ram Devi Jhansi; 2001. (I) CPR 393, Kuldip Singh v. The Manager, Bank of India; 2002 (1) CPR 34, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidya Peeth through its Vice Chancellor v. Smt. Sheela Mukherjee; 1999 (3) CPR 347, Prathmic Vidyalya v. Madhuri Devi; 2001 (3) CPR 171, The Director, Economics and Statistics v. M. N. Chibra Asokan; 2002 (1) CPR 87, Army Group Insurance Fund v. Naik Soh an Lal; 2002, (3) CPR 189, Divisional Forest Officer v. Aravindaksha Menon; 1999 (1) CPR 296, Adhishashi Abhiyanta v. Arvind Kumar; 1999 (2) CPR 225, Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, APSEB v. Gadde Pramila. 7. We need not go into the details of these rulings. Definitely, the complainant is an employee, BHEL is employer and the revisionist is the regulatory authority to pay pension. It was argued that an employee cannot file a case against an employer because there is relationship of employee and employer, there is no relationship of consumer and services. In this connection, we have not to go in to a number of rulings but the ruling given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 J. Cr. C. 329 (SC); 2000 (I) CLR Page 162 Regional Provident Fund Commission v. Shiv Kumar Joshi is the final authority to this object. In this connection, we have not to go in to a number of rulings but the ruling given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 J. Cr. C. 329 (SC); 2000 (I) CLR Page 162 Regional Provident Fund Commission v. Shiv Kumar Joshi is the final authority to this object. Reference was made in this ruling to another ruling, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta reported in 1994 (I) ACC Page 243, there may be relationship of employee and employer but if the employee is also a consumer and the employer is a rendering services, the benefits of the Consumer Protection Act shall also be available to the employee because the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are supplemental to other provisions already listed under other provisions of law (Sec. III of the Consumer Protection Act). In the ruling of Shiv Kumar Joshi, Shri Shiv Kumar Joshi was also an employee of the factory. The factory was the employer. He was the member of the Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and inspite of being his employee and the factory being employer, it was held that he had made contribution, from his contribution interest is earned, and from his il1terest the scheme is managed by the opposite party and therefore the managing authority are rendering services to the complainant and therefore a petition shall not lie with District Forum. It was emphatically argued by the revisionist that the ruling of Shiv Kumar Joshi is limited to only Employee Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and shall not apply to other cases. The question is not of a scheme of 1952 or 1995, the question is of the scheme, service consumer. The law of the Supreme Court is land of the law and it was not given for any specific case only. It was given for all other cases also which are of similar type and similar facts. The question is in the present scheme as well, the employee had to pay his contribution, the employer has to pay his contribution. It was argued that the complainant has paid the contribution and given option only after retirement. Again to say that we shall not enter into the facts of the case. It ought to have been contested at the District Forum only. It was argued that the complainant has paid the contribution and given option only after retirement. Again to say that we shall not enter into the facts of the case. It ought to have been contested at the District Forum only. We are sitting on the revisional side, we have to see only jurisdictional error or to be liberal enough, any type of legal error but not factual disputes. Out of the deposits of the employee certain percentage is kept in the Provident Fund Deposit and certain percentage is transferred towards Family Pension Scheme" which too is maintained from the interest on the deposits of the employee..- If the deposits were made late, it should not have been accepted or should have been accepted under protest but after a deposit of Rs. 44,000/- by the employer BHEL and Rs. 15,000/- by the employee. After getting a sum of about Rs. 60,000/- from which the complainant can get ordinary interest of Rs. 1650/- per month, it is pathetic to say that he is not entitled to a pension of Rs. 1643/- or 'after litigation for about 4 years to say that the Forum and the State Commission has got no jurisdiction to give him a relief. The order of the District Forum is perfectly justified. Revisionist should rightly calculate the pension of the complainant and should pay him accordingly. At least, there should be a milk of human kindness in dealing with its employees. 8. This revision has got no force and accordingly dismissed. Costs easy.