Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/264

Preeti Duggal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College Hospital & Research Inst. - Opp.Party(s)

Kunal Sofat Rep.

16 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 264 dated 22.10.2020                                                         Date of decision: 16.07.2021. 

 

Preeti Duggal w/o Sh. Amit Duggal r/o B-XXXI, 1136/61/181, 33 Ft Road, Mundian Kalan No-1, New GTB Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                    …..Complainant

                                                Versus

Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College Hospital & Research Institute through its Director/Principal/Manager Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                         …..Opposite party

        Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act and amended as under

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS. JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Kunal Sofat, authorized representative of

Complainant, in person.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                As per the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant joined the OP Institute as Assistant Accountant on 21.11.2005 at monthly salary of Rs.3000/-. The complainant worked with the OP till September 2011. Thereafter, in October 2011 the complainant was promoted as Accountant and her salary was enhanced to Rs.7550/- per month. From April 2012, the salary of the complainant further enhanced to Rs.1,05,855/- per annum and from April 2018 to September 2020, the complainant was to receive enhanced salary of Rs.2,49,600/- per annum. It is further alleged in the complaint that during COVID lockdown, the OP Institute paid the complainant only half salary for the months of April, May, June and did not pay the salary of August 2020. In the month of September 2020, the senior officials of OP Institute compelled the complainant to send her resignation. As a result of harassment, the complainant sent her resignation on 08.09.2020. The complainant demanded compensation equivalent to salary of 10 months as per contract. The complainant further demanded gratuity, bonus and amount of annual leaves etc but nothing has been heard from the OP till date. The complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- as salary of 10 months, gratuity of Rs.1,62,692/-, bonus of Rs.18,800/- and amount of annual leaves of Rs.19,350/- and pending salary of three months amounting to Rs.25,681/-. In all, the complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.4,34,523/-. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be directed to pay Rs.4,34,523/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.2 lac for causing harassing to the complainant.

2.                We have heard the representative of the complainant and have also gone through the record.

3.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant against her employer claiming that she has not been paid salary, gratuity, leave encashment benefits, bonus etc and has also been forced to resign. In our considered view, prima facie the complainant cannot be said to be covered under the definition of consumer. An employee of private sector can seek redressal of her grievance against the employer before the Labour Court or any other appropriate Forum as the case may be. The representative of the complainant has relied upon Chief Exe.(Works) The Hooghly vs. Sri Sachin Kundu-(FA/231/10 decided on 06.12.2010) by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata. We have carefully gone through this judgment. In the cited case it has been held that there is no relationship of a consumer between the employer and the complainant and consequently, there cannot be any deficiency of service by the employer for the purpose of payment of gratuity to the employee by the employer. It was further held in this case that the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  is not maintainable in the Fora constituted under the Act and the complainant was given liberty to approach the authority concerned prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for redressal of his grievance as to non-payment of gratuity by the employer. Therefore, the law laid down in the cited case cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case to hold that the complainant is a consumer and dispute alleged in the complaint is a consumer dispute.

4.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is summarily dismissed being not maintainable as the consumer cannot be said to be covered under the definition of Consumer nor the dispute between the employee and the employer can be treated as a consumer dispute. The complainant, however, shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Commission for redressal of her grievance. Copies of order be supplied to complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.    

 

                              (Jyotsna Thatai)                              (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.07.2021.

Gurpreet Sharma