A.Gopakumar,Asst.Field Officer V/S The Principal,High Range School - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

StateCommission

A/10/708

The Principal,High Range School - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.Gopakumar,Asst.Field Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Joseph & Kuriyan

29 Oct 2011

ORDER

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram

First Appeal No. A/10/708

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District )

1. The Principal,High Range School

Maduppatty,Munnar

BEFORE:
	HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 707/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 29..10..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

1. The Principal, : COMPLAINANTS

High Range School,

Madupatty.P.O.,

Munnar.

2. The Manager(Administration),

M/s Tata Tea Limited, Munnar.

(By Adv.Mathews K. Uthuppachan)

Vs.

1. A.Gopakumar, Assistant Field Officer, : OPPOSITE PARTIES.

Nullathanni Estate, Munnar Post.

(By Adv.B.A.Krishnakumar)

2. The Regional Secretary,

Central Board of Secondary Education,

Plot No.1630 A, ‘j’Block,

15^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

West Madras – 600 014.

(By Adv.G.Mohanachandran Pandarathil)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 in CC. 61/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders not to issue compulsory TC to the daughter of the complainant and not to levy a higher fee than the fee levied to the children of the employees of the 3^rd opposite party and also to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs with interest at 12%.

2. The case of the complainant is that he was an Assistant Field Officer in the establishment of the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant was under treatment for rheumatic arthritis and gout, at the General Hospital, Tata Tea Limited. As there was no improvement he opted for Ayurvedic treatment and applied for leave. The leave was not sanctioned and alleging unauthorized absence his service was terminated. The matter is pending as industrial dispute before the appropriate authority. His daughter is a student in the school run by the 1^st opposite party. She was directed to obtain the transfer certificate on16.8.07 and by the end of the academic year. On 16.4.08 when the school reopened and the child went to attend Class III she was sent out of school. It is contended that the school is a public school affiliated to CBSE. The complainant has remitted the fee to the school regularly, while in service by recovery from wages and thereafter directly. It is also alleged that the complainant abandoned his work and proceeded abroad and on account of continuous unauthorized absence he has been dismissed from service with effect from 31.7.2007

3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed version contending that the school was started in 1985 essentially to provide education of the children of employees of Tata Tea Ltd. The said school is an unaided one, owned and controlled by Tata Tea Ltd.. The school is unable to cater to the needs of around 13500 employees of Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Pvt. Ltd and 1500 employees of Tata Tea Ltd.. The admission to school is strictly on the basis of a selection process. Others are considered based on the vacancies available. It is stated that only the children of parents working in Tata Tea Ltd/KADHP Co. are provided. In case of any parent leaving the company service the child is to be immediately withdrawn from the school. Provision is made in appropriate cases to enable the child to complete the academic year in question. It is specifically provided in the prospectus that the admission to the school is restricted to the children of the establishment of Tata Tea Ltd. and KADHP Co. The school is providing a high concession to the children of the employees of the above companies. The school also provides free education to the children of entitled employees. The complainant was an employee of Tata Tea Ltd and he was transferred. Subsequently the service of the complainant was terminated with effect from 31.07.07 vide order dated 18.2.08. It is contended that the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act cannot be applicable to the case of the complainant as the complainant is no longer in the service of the company further, he is paying the fee which is applicable to the non employees of the Company. There is no special fee levied in the case of the child of the complainant. The child has been permitted to continue education in the school subject to the payment of regular fee. It is also contended that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1; Exts.P1 to P10 and R1 to R10.

5. The contention that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties has not been considered by the Forum. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer of the opposite party and that the relationship is only contractual. We find that it has not disputed that the fee levied for the studies of the child used to be deducted from the salary of the complainant when he was in the service of the 3^rd opposite party. After his service was terminated also he was paying regular fee according to the opposite parties and special fee according to the complainant. In view of the fact that there is consideration for the services rendered by the opposite parties we find that the complainant/ daughter can be treated as a consumer.

6. It is admitted that the services of the complainant has been terminated. The school is an unaided one. All the same in view of the recognition provided by the Government and affiliation granted by the CBSE the opposite parties cannot contend that only stipulations as contained in the prospectus is applicable in the institution. It was also brought out in evidence that when there are vacancies of seats outsiders are also admitted on the basis of merit. Ext.P9 is the evidence produced to contend that the industrial dispute is still pending. Complainant has produced Ext.P9 certificate from the Deputy Labour Officer, Munnar wherein it is mentioned that an industrial dispute numbered as 349/06 with respect to the dismissal of the complainant is still pending. No contra objective evidence in this regard has been produced. Hence it has to be treated that dispute before the competent authority with respect to the dismissal of the complainant is pending. As pointed out by the counsel for the complainant/respondent as per section 33(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the conditions of service of such workman is not to be altered during the pendency of proceedings before the authorities concerned. As the dispute as to the legality of the termination of the complainant is still pending we find that the child of the complainant is entitled for the fee concession as an employee of the opposite parties. In the circumstances we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum directing the opposite parties not to issue compulsory TC to the child and also not to levy fee in excess of the fee collected from employees of the 3^rd opposite party. All the same the direction to pay cost and compensation is set aside.