BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31st day of December, 2008

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.178/2008

Between

Complainant : Thomas Kuriakose,

Attappattu House,

Kanjar P.O,

Thodupuzha, Idukki District.

(Proprietor, Haritha Nursery, Thodupuzha)

(Party in person)

And

Opposite Party : Gopalakrishnan Nair,

District Labour Officer,

District Labour Office,

Chiramel Buildings, Thodupuzha.

(Party in person)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complaint is filed against the District Labour Officer for deficiency in issuing the Labour Contract Licence and Registration to the complainant.
 

The complainant is conducting an agricultural nursery and garden in the name and style "Haritha Nursery" for his livelihood, at Thodupuzha. The complainant himself and about 30 labourers are engaged in the functioning of the same. The complainant is producing tender plants and they are also engaged in the construction and protection of gardens in Resorts, Star Hotels etc. A large number of labourers are needed for the construction of gardens and entering in contract with the Resorts, Hotels etc. Thus the complainant applied for a Labour Contract Licence and Registration to the opposite party on Ist August, 2008 with 21 numbers of labourers. A fee of Rs.750/- was paid for licence, a security deposit of Rs.420/- and a registration fee of Rs.1,000/- was paid by the complainant. The ordinary time for getting registration is one week. But the opposite party deliberately avoided the complainant from obtaining the licence. The complainant was not able to conduct several works offered to the complainant such as Greenberg Resort-Kulamavu, Siyanna Village-Chinnakkanal, Saj Resort-Vagamon, Gandhiji Study Centre-Kulamavu, because of the non-availability of the licence. So the complainant was incurred a loss of Rs.2,50,000/- due to the act of the opposite party. The complainant is not able to give opportunity to his labourers because of the act of the opposite party. The complainant cannot pay P.F of the labourers because of the non-availability of the licence. All the necessary documents were produced before the opposite party but the opposite party refused to issue the licence and it is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. So the complaint is filed for getting a direction for issuing the Labour Contract Licence and Registration and also for compensation under various heads.

2. The opposite party filed written version stating that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant filed an application for Contract Labour Licence in order to engage the labourers in Mahindra Holidays and Resorts Limited, Club Mahindra Lakeview Resorts(I) Limited, Chinnakkanal, Munnar, Kerala as per the Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and a prescribed fee was also paid on 2.08.2008. The application was sent to the Assistant Labour Officer, Santhanpara for investigation and report. The opposite party inspected the premises on 29.08.2008 and requested the complainant to produce the relevant documents for the same. But the complainant never produced such relevant documents and a show cause notice for prosecution proceedings was issued to the complainant. Therefore the complainant produced the relevant documents on 19.11.2008 to the opposite parties. But as per the application of the complainant, it was reported that 21 labourers were working under the contract of the complainant. But when the opposite party inspected the premises on 29.08.2008, there were only 9 labourers engaged in the work of the same. So it is convinced by the opposite party that the complainant is not entitled to get a licence such as applied by the complainant. As per the contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition) Act, the licence can be issued only for the institutions where more than 20 labourers were seen. The opposite parties are not liable for the loss caused to the complainant due to the non-availability of contract work in various resorts. It is admitted by the opposite party that there is a delay caused to the opposite party, only because of a detailed investigation, needed for the same. The complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is dismissed.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced from the side of the opposite party and Ext.R1 marked.
 

5. The POINT :- The complainant is conducting a nursery for agricultural and garden for his livelihood. About 30 workers are working there. The complainant is also engaged in the work of making and growing the gardens in resorts, hotels etc. in contract basis. For the purpose of the same the labour contract licence of the opposite party is required. The complainant applied for labour contract licence to opposite party for 21 labourers on Ist August 2008. The fee for the same is also paid. The complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.P1(series) is the copy of the chellan receipts, Rs.750/- for licence fee, Rs.420/-as security deposit. Rs.100/- is the registration fee, paid by the complainant.Copy of the list of 21 labourers also produced with the application fee which is Ext.P2. The complainant is also paying provident fund for 11 labourers. The opposite party did not issue the licence because the complainant was not working according to the interests of the District Labour Officer. The opposite party initiated prosecution proceedings against the complainant because the complainant was working without licence. Because of non-availability of licence, the complainant avoided several works and so suffered a loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. The opposite party filed written version and as per the written version, they have admitted that the complainant applied for labour contract licence with prescribed fee. But when the opposite party inspected the premises of “Club Mahindra Resort” where the complainant applied for labour contract licence, only 9 labourers were seen working there. There were only 9 labourers, in the list of labourers produced from the “Club Mahindra Resort”, it needed 20 or more workmen for applying contract labour licence. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get the licence. As per the cross examination of the opposite party, the complainant deposed that, at the time of inspection of the District Labour Officer, the complainant was doing the maintenance work of the resort. The maintenance work needed only 9 labourers. But he worked with more than 20 labourers there, for several other works. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant applied for the licence by paying specified fee. The opposite party inspected the premises on 29.08.2008 and requested to produce relevant documents for the labour contract licence. But the documents were not produced in time and so legal proceedings were initiated against the complainant. As per Ext.P2 the list of the labourers produced by the complainant, shows that there are 21 employees. The opposite party also admitted the same, because it may be the list of labourers working in various firms of the complainant. The complainant also deposed that he is paying provident fund for 21 workers, the opposite party did not challenge the same. It may be true that, when the opposite party inspected the premises there were only 9 labourers. The complainant also admitted the same because the maintenance work was going, it needed only 9 labourers. So we think there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant. The opposite party, after receiving the prescribed fee, the licence was not issued to the complainant, which is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party.
 

6. As per the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, Section 1 Sub clause 4(a) " to every establishment in which twenty or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months as contract labour; (b) to every contractor who employs or who employed on any day of the preceding twelve months twenty or more workmen: Provided that the appropriate Government may, after giving not less than two months notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment or contractor employing such number of workmen less than twenty as may be specified in the notification".
 

7. The complainant is having more than 20 labourers and they were working in several firms together and separately. Licence is not issued only because, as per the inspection of opposite party, there were only 9 labourers seen. It is not a specific reason for the same. The inspection was only on one day and on that day the maintenance work was going on. The opposite party ought have investigated again for getting a clear picture of the same. So we think it is proper to issue the licence to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to issue the Contract Labour Licence and Registration within 7 days and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party, the District Labour Officer is directed to issue Contract Labour Licence and Registration within 15 days after due investigation. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for the compensation for loss and inconvenience caused because of non-availability of licence to the complainant and deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2008

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Thomas Kuriakose

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1(series) - Copy of the chellan receipts

Ext.P2 - True copy of List of Name & Address of Labourers

On the side of Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - True photocopy of the extract of the Register of Contractors produced before the opposite party

                by the Principal Employer Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited, Chinnakanal