The case record is put up today for hearing. Advocates for both the parties are present and filed their respective haziras. Heard from both the sides.

                                         Advocate for the complainant submitted that the complainant was an employee under the O.P from 1989 to 2016 and left his job on 30.11.2016. The OP did not pay the gratuity amount of Rs.56,077/-.

                                         On the other hand, Advocate for the O.P submitted that the main crux of the present issue at hand is for payment of gratuity, which is required to be decided by the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

                                         On perusal of the case record, it is found that the complainant has filed this complaint claiming gratuity amount from the O.P along with compensation and litigation cost. In the present scenario, complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that- (i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider; (ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects; (iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect. Further, as per Section 2(d) of the Act consumer means any person who - (i) buys any goods for a consideration, which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person. From the above discussions, it can safely be said that the complainant is not a bonafide consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to sue the present complaint before this Commission. That apart, this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the matter involved in the case.

                                         Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant merits no consideration and thus, it is dismissed.

                                         Inform both the parties.