West Bengal

Nadia

CC/20/2019

SAHIDA SEIKH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER UNITED BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

Safikul Alam

29 Apr 2024

ORDER

Ld. Advocate(s)

                                    For Complainant: Safikul Alam

                                    For OP/OPs : Puspasish Gupta

 

            Date of filing of the case                 :30.01.2019

            Date of Disposal  of the case                      :29.04.2024

 

Final Order / Judgment dtd.29.04.2024

The concise fact of the case  of the complainant is that  the complainant   is   in   brief    is  that  the  husband  of  the  complainant 

(2)

CC/20/2019

 

Nabichhaddin Sekh the husband of the complainant  died on 04.01.2016 who was  unorganized labour. He  contributed  money towards  health scheme under which a labour is entitled  to get Rs.50,000/- at the time of his death  and OP NO.2 as Additional Labour Commissioner should pay that the  money. The Bank  account number of the diseased  labour Nabichhaddin Sekh is 1602015792. Complainant  Sahida Seikh is the  nominee of the diseased  and she  is entitled  to get Rs.50,000/- at health scheme.  The said diseased  labour contributed  in that scheme  by paying premium  regularly.  Late Echhem is the father of diseased Nabichhaddin Sekh who was a Van Driver. His date of birth  on 01.01.1960 his date of maturity  of the said account  no. is 01.10.2020 being account no.16.02.2010-15792 and his account no. Under OP No. 1 Bank, United Bank of India (Pro-OP No.1) Zuranpur Branch is 0621010277310. The inspector of Minimum  Wages  Act  LWFC  Kaliganj Block accepted the application of complainant  on 10.08.2017. He told that there was a delay in filing that application. The complainant applied for  e-payment  by filing  an application on 19.04.2017. the date of making schedule  of that  list is 28.01.2014. The complainant  filed  different documents to the inspector  Minimum Wages  LWFC Kaliganj on 10.08.2017 but the  complainant did not get  any benefit  till date. The OP did not  assign  any reason for the delay. So, the  present case  is  filed . The complainant  prayed for an award of Rs.50,000/- under SASPFUW Scheme and Rs.20,000/- towards  compensation  for mental harassment .

The OP No.2&3 defended the case by filing  W/V wherein  they denied each and every allegation.  The complainant  unnecessarily made the OP NO.1,4&5 as party to this case. OP No.1,4&5 are not related with this case. The Government of West Bengal floated  for social security of the unorganised  workmen floated the State Assisted Scheme of Provident Fund  for unorganized  workers being a Social Welfare Scheme whereunder the unorganized  Workmen are enrolled to register  their name  with the office of the Labour Welfare Facilitation  Centre situated  within the  premises  of  the office of BDO and to deposit Rs.25/- per month with the  collecting agent  to facilitate  deposit of  such amount in the State Account  and the State is to deposit matching grant  and the Workmen  would receive  the total accumulated  amount  along with interest. The husband  of the complainant Nabichhaddin Sekh registered  his name having  account no. 1602015792 under BDO with the  UBI Zuranpur  Branch, Kaligunj, Nadia. During the period February, 2014 to December, 2015 that Nabichhaddin Sekh deposited  total Rs.575/- and the  State Government  also deposited  equal  amounts.  Subsequent  to  December,  2015 no   deposit    has  been   made   by   Nabichhaddin  Sekh   since  diseased   and    as   such     no   further

 

(3)

CC/20/2019

 

matching  grant  was deposited . On 19.04.2017 an application  was submitted  by the complainant  claiming  the assured amounts. The said claim  for recovery  of Rs.50,000/- under SASPUFUW is to be submitted within 120 days from the date of death of the unorganized  worker . But the application  was made  at an exorbitant  delay. So, the OP No.3 was unable to  entertain the application and the said  application  was rejected.  The OP No.3 advised  the complainant  to prefer  a fresh  application  along with  an application for condonation of delay. But the complainant filed the present case without following the advice. The  OP  has already  disbursed  Rs.1405/- on 06.01.2017 by depositing  at his bank account . The complainant  is not a consumer  under the C.P Act since he registered  his name with the social Welfare  Scheme of the Government  and as such  this Commission  has no jurisdiction  to entertain  and draw this case . The OP , therefore,  prayed for that the case  is liable to be dismissed.

          The pleadings of the parties and the point of dispute  involved  in this case demands for ascertainment  of the following points for proper adjudication  of this case.

Points for Determination

Point No.1.

Whether the  present case is maintainable  in law and  its present form.

Point No.2.

Whether the complainant  is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Point No.3.

          To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.

 

Decision with Reasons

Point No.1.

The complainant  filed this case for recovery  of the fund under SASPUFUW  for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand).

The OP challenged  the case as not maintainable  on the ground  that is barred by law. The OP categorically  stated that  the complainant  is not a consumer under the C.P. Act, 1986 because it is a Government Welfare Scheme floated  by the Government  of West Bengal.

 

(4)

CC/20/2019

 

As per the C.P. Act, 1986 consumer means  any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promises and includes any user of such goods for consideration paid or promised but does not include  a person  who obtain  such goods for resale  for commercial  purpose.

In the instant case  the complainant  is not a purchaser  of any goods. On the contrary, it is admitted  position  that it is a Social Welfare Scheme  introduced  by the Government of West Bengal.

The OP has filed the resolution  of the Government  of West Bengal Labour Department  No.34-IR/Misc-06/10 dated 05.01.2011. As per  the said resolution,  Clause 4 provides  for that all applications  for claim in form  one shall be submitted  to the concerned  inspector of Minimum Wages in triplicate  in the office where such beneficiary  has been registered  as a member under the scheme  within 60 days of release  from a hospital . It is further  enshrined  in the said  resolution  that as per clause 5 an appeal can be preferred  by the dis-satisfied worker. As per clause 5, any unorganised  sector worker aggrieved  by an order/decision of the Deputy Labour Commissioner  under this scheme  may prefer an appeal  to the Deputy Labour Commissioner  of the concerned  area within 30 days from the receipt  of order/decision.

So, in case of any grievance by a worker an application  shall be preferred first to the inspector of Minimum Wages Act.  If he is dis-satisfied  or aggrieved  by the order of the  said inspector  or regarding any dispute the aggrieved  worker has to file an appeal  before the  Deputy Labour Commissioner. So, under the said resolution  there is no scope to entertain  the grievance  of the worker .

Ld. Defence Counsel argued  that the jurisdiction of this Commission is specifically  barred as per said  resolution.

The complainant could not assign any reason  to discard  the said provisions  of the resolution of the Government of West Bengal.

In the backdrop  of the aforesaid  specific  provisions  of resolution  and in view of the objection  by the OP, Commission is of the view that  this Commission  has no jurisdiction to try this case for redressal of the grievance  of the worker who is the husband of the complainant .

 

 

 

 

(5)

CC/20/2019

 

Accordingly, point no.1 is decided against the complainant.

 

Point No.2&3.

Both the points are  taken up together  for brevity and convenience of discussion since these are closely interlinked with each other.

From the case record  it transpires  that the Government introduced  a social security  scheme  for the unorganized  workmen to launch  the Provident Fund  for unorganized  workers  under the name State Assisted Scheme of Provident Fund  for unorganized worker (SASPUFUW). Under  that scheme  unorganized  workmen are to enrol  and register their name  with the office  of the Labour Welfare Facilitation  Centre under the BDO. The Labour to deposit Rs.25/- per month by cash  with the collecting  agent to deposit  such amounts in the state account  and the state shall deposit  a matching  grant.  Thereafter,  the Workmen  would receive  the total accumulated  amount along with  interest.

OP categorically  stated in the W/V that the complainant defaulted  in payment of the said  premium properly. It is the specific defence  case that the  complainant  deposited a total of sum of Rs.575/-. As per  the said SASPUFUW scheme the State Government  also deposited  a similar  amounts  as a matching  grant in the bank account of the said diseased  labour.  Subsequent to December, 2015 no deposit  has been made on behalf of the said labour Nabichhaddin Sekh .

The complainant  filed some documents.

Annexure-1 is the  application  filed by the  complainant Sahida Seikh for a claim of Rs.50,000/-.

After scrutiny of the said annexure-1 is transpires  that there is an endorsement  that there is a delay  in filing the said application.

Annexure-2 is the form for payment through electronic mode.

Annexure-3 is the application on the death of the said labour Nabichhaddin Sekh for a sum of Rs.50,000/- filed  on 19.04.2017. As per the  claim of the complainant  the said labour  Nabichhaddin Sekh died on 04.01.2016. Thereafter his wife  filed the claim on 19.04.2017.

Annexure-4 is the  Rules  regarding  death of the labour before  completion  of 60 years along with  Identity Card .

 

 

(6)

CC/20/2019

 

Annexure-5 is the  statement  of amount collected  as premium under the said  scheme.

The OP contended that a sum of Rs.575/- was deposited  in the said scheme on behalf of the  said labour  and equal  amount of premium  was paid by the Government in the said scheme. Thus a  total sum of Rs.1405/- has been claimed  to have been  deposited  by the contributor. The complainant  could not prove  any document to establish that more than Rs.1405/- was deposited  on behalf  of the said  labour.

The OP claimed  that the claim has to be raised within 120 days  from the date of death of the unorganised  worker.  But in the  instant case  the application  was made after a long time causing  exorbitant delay.

After assessing  the evidence, it is evident  that the said labour Nabichhaddin Sekh  died on 04.01.2016 but the said application  was filed in, 2017. As per  the exhibit  the said application  for getting benefit  under the said  scheme for Rs.50,000/- was filed  on 19.04.2017.

In fact the claim of the husband  of the complainant  was rejected due to exorbitant delay. So, the dealing authority  that is Deputy Labour Commission  rejected the claim  of the complainant.  As per  clause 5 of the resolution  vide no.34-IR/MISC-06/10 dated 05.01.2011 clause 4 specifically  laid down  that all Deputy Labour Commissioner authorized  to administer claims under this scheme within their respective jurisdiction.  As per  clause 5  of the said  resolution  of Government of West Bengal  dated 05.01.2011 any unorganised  sector  worker aggrieved  by an order/ decision of the Deputy Labour Commissioner  under the  scheme may prefer an appeal to the  Deputy Labour Commissioner  of the concerned  area within 30 days  from the receipt  of such order/decision.

So, the  claim of the  complainant is specifically  barred under the  provisions  of law  and Rules  enumerated  by the Government  of West Bengal  under clause 5  of the said  resolution. The complainant  has right  to prefer  an appeal  before the Deputy Labour Commissioner  of the area  within which  the complainant /her diseased husband  used to reside. Therefore,  this Commission  does not  have any  jurisdiction  to try  this dispute/ case.

Accordingly,  in the backdrop of the aforesaid  discussion  and specific  provisions of law  the complainant  is debarred  from getting

 

(7)

CC/20/2019

 

any relief  from this Commission. So, the claim raised  by the complainant  cannot be  entertained  before this Commission.

 

Point 2&3 are accordingly, decided against  the OP negatively.

In the result  the complaint case fails.

Hence,

                                       It is

Ordered

 

               that the complaint case no.CC/20/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

 

All Interim Applications  (I.A) stand disposed of  accordingly.

D.A to note in the trial register.

The case is accordingly disposed of.

Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.             

          

Dictated & corrected by me

 

 

 ............................................

                PRESIDENT

(Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)                        ................ ..........................................

                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                    (Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)

 

I  concur,

 

 

    ........................................                                                         

            MEMBER                                                                                  

( SHRI NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)