PRESENT : MR.A.PAUL

Today is fixed for order.

Ld. counsels Sri B.K.Chatterjee is present for the petitioners while Sri T.Barman is present for the respondents.

The preliminary issue that has been fixed for decision is that;

(i)Whether the petitioners come within the definition of consumer and Whether disputes regarding payment of wages in under MGNREGA can be dealt with by the District Consumer Forum.

Ld.counsel for the petitioners have relied on judgment of Supreme court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (Date of judgment 14.12.1999). It has been held in that case that the member of the scheme as provided in the provident funds scheme comes under the definition of a consumer. The court held that a member of the scheme is as consumer within Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act and deficiency in service of the Provident Fund Commissioner can be dealt with by the consumer Commissions or forums. It has been argued that present petitioners are also members of schemes under MGNREGA.

Ld. counsel Sri T. Barman appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that State Govt. U/S 19 and 23 of the MGNREGA have framed rules to deal with the disputes relating to the payment of wages under the said act. As per Section 23 the dispute should be first referred to the Programme Officer and in case the complaint is not satisfactorily dealt with person aggrieved is to move the Ombudsman created U/s 19 of this Act.

To deal with the issues in hand Section 2(1)(b) Consumer Protection Act is profitably referred to. As per section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act a consumer is defined as any person who (1) buys any goods for a consideration or (2) hires or avails of any services for a consideration. So to be a consumer the complainant must make some payment or promise to do so. He must purchase the service or the goods by either paying or promising to pay. The definition of consumer has been given wide connotation covering a lot of services. The provident fund commissioner has also been considered as Service Provider as he is receiving monetary contribution from the member of the scheme. Bare perusal of the MGNREGA provides that this is an act to provide enhancement of livelihood security of the house hold of rural areas by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wages employment by providing unskilled manual work. The payments in MGNREGA is referred to as wages. Under this act there shall be various schemes implemented by the Govt. agencies under which unskilled manual work will be provided to those seeking the same and after providing manual labour they shall be paid wages. The amount of which shall not be less than the minimum wages stipulated as per the Minimum Wages Act.

Situated thus, disputes regarding payment of wages can be dealt with either under the mechanism provided in the Minimum Wages Act or under payment of wages Act. The MGNREGA also provides a mechanism for resolution of disputes arising out of payment of wages under the Act. It appears that Govt. of Tripura has framed rules for engagement of ombudsman under Section 19 of the NREGA. It further appears that in Dhalai District Head quarter at Ambassa there exists one ombudsman for dealing with disputes arising out of payment of wages under NREGA. This being so this forum considers it appropriate to refer the disputes to the Ld. Ombudsman with direction to dispose of the complaints within three months.

The case is disposed of with above noted directions.