Reply filed. Copy supplied.
Heard on the point as to whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Be put up for order after lunch.
Case file taken up after lunch:
13-01-2015
Sh. P.C Bhardwaj, and Sh. O.S. Patial, Adv for the complainant.
Sh.S.S.Banyal, Adv for Ops
There is no dispute that the opposite parties is an institute functioning under the name and style ‘Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess’ which is providing training of Air Hostess having its centres at Janakpuri, New Delhi, Andheri (West) Mumbai and Shila. The Opposite parties through advertisement invited applications for the post centre Heads in its institute at the said places for which the complainant also applied. The said institute issued offer of appointment for the post of Centre Head vide letter dated 26-02-2013. The offer was duly accepted by the complainant, as a result of which the opposite parties issued appointment letter dated 06th march, 2013 in favour of the complainant, whereby, the complainant was appointed as Centre Head of opposite party at New Delhi and subsequently he was deputed as centre head at Shimla of the said institute. The complainant was appointed as an employee i.e. Centre Head subject to the terms and conditions contained in Appointment Letter dated 06th March, 2013.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rupees 2, 13, 400/-(i.e. arrears of salary for the period of September and October 2013 of Rupees 80, 000/-, Variable arrears of Rupees 53, 400/- and Rupees 80 ,000/- as salary for two months for notice period along with compensation of Rupees One Lac and cost of the complaint on the grounds that the opposite parties were irregular in paying the salary and used to release the salary even after a lapse of 2-3 months in spite of which the complainant being head of the institute did not hesiste and continued to perform the assigned task sincerely, but the opposite parties failed to make payment of his salary as per the terms and conditions of the contract which amounts to deficiency in service.
3. The said claim is disputed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have taken up the defence that neither the complainant falls within the definition of the consumer as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 nor this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.
4. In view of the said defence set up by the opposite parties it would be in the fitness of the justice to dispose of the said defences before disposing of the complaint on merit.
5. Admittedly, the institute named ‘Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training’ is an employer, whereas the complainant was an employee of the said Institute. The complainant was appointed as an employee on payment of monthly salary as claimed by him. In the complaint he has claimed the arrears of his salary and compensation on account of non –payment of salary by the opposite parties. In view of the said admitted position it stands established that the complainant had not hired the service of the said institute, but the said institute had hired the service of the complainant, as a result of which this Forum is bound to conclude that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as envisaged under section (2)(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.
6. Secondly, the said institute is located, carrying on its business and work for gain at Mumbai, Delhi and Shimla. The complainant was appointed as Centre Head at Shimla. The complainant worked at Shimla with the opposite party No.3 and his salary can allegedly become due at Shimla. In view of the said undisputed facts this Forum is also bound to conclude that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. In the complaint the complainant has claimed that since the complainant is residing and he received the Appointment letter within the jurisdiction of this Forum hence this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, but in the opinion of this Forum, the said submission is ill founded and without substance because neither the residence of the complainant nor the receipt of Appointment letter by him within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum constitue cause of action either wholly of partly to file the present complaint before this Forum.
7. In view of the finding recorded above, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable. Let certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. It be consigned to the records after needful.
Announced
13-01-2015
