BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 18^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to pay him P.F amount with interest, compensation together with litigation cost.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant was an employee of OP.  That he was getting salary every month along with PF amount which was credited to his P.F account No.DSNHP002184200E994.  That the complainant was making contribution of Rs.1,320/- and his employer was contributing amount in all Rs.2,640/- to his P.F account.  That the complainant was illegally terminated from the service by the OP for which he filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.  That the Writ Petition was allowed with a direction to OP to pay him 25% of the salary along with consequential benefits.  That the OP preferred a Writ Appeal and the division bench ordered OP to pay him salary.  That OP told the complainant that they have regularly depositing P.F amount in his P.F account.  That OP has paid the salary to the complainant from 07.02.2011 to October 2012.  That the complainant through RTI application found that the P.F amount has not been deposited by the OP in his P.F account.  That when the complainant asked the OP as to why the P.F amount has not been deposited in his P.F account, OP refused to give any reply despite his repeated request.  Therefore, he was forced to approach this Forum for redressal.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

That from the statements made by the complainant, it is very clear that, the complainant has approached to settle his salary and P.F dues on the ground of employer and employee relations and the same cannot be construed as dispute under the ambit of Consumer Protection law.  That the complainant and OP are not governed by the principles of ‘Consumer’ and service provider as such at the threshold itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  That the complainant was originally employee of M/s.Perot Systems TSI (India) Pvt. Ltd., which was subsequently acquired by Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd.

That P.F account of the complainant as per the record of OP is DS/NHP/0021842/000/0006518.  However the complainant has approached this Forum claiming the P.F account No.DSNHP002184200E994 and the same is not within the knowledge of OP.  That OP is not aware that his contribution to P.F account was Rs.1,320/-.  That the allegations of complainant that he was terminated from service illegally is denied as false and baseless.  That the complainant had raised an Industrial Dispute in a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P No.36962/2009 and the same came to be dismissed.  That the order passed by single bench was challenged before the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.1931/2011.  That Hon’ble High Court rejected the claim of the complainant by upholding his termination vide order dated 26.11.2012.  That the complainant by suppressing all these material facts has approached this Forum to make monetary benefits by raising false litigations.  That the remaining allegations made by the complainant are all false and baseless.  That the complaint is vague and devoid of any essential fact in order to adjudicate the dispute on hand.  That the complainant is not all entitled to any of the reliefs prayed.

Therefore, OP prays for rejection of the complaint with exemplary cost.

4. In view of rival contention of both the parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant as well as OP tendered their evidence by way of affidavit and relied on certain documents in support of their respective contentions.  Heard the arguments.  Perused the sworn testimony of both the parties as well as the documents relied upon by them and other materials placed on record.

6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

7.  The grievance of the complainant is that, OP who was his employer failed to remit the P.F amount in his P.F account during the course of his employment.  Therefore, he could not get the P.F amount for the said period from the P.F Commissioner and on enquiry with the Employees Provident Fund Organization he found that OP has not at all remitted P.F amount in his account.  Therefore, the complainant sought a direction to OP to pay him the P.F amount together with interest and compensation.

8. From the allegations made by the complainant, on face of it the dispute is between a employer and employee and not between a ‘consumer’ and service provider.  Admittedly complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of OP.  He was an employee of OP and was terminated from service in the year 2009 and the complainant challenged his termination by way of a Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P No.36962/2009 which appears to be have been dismissed and later the order passed by the single bench has been challenged before the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.1931/2011 which appears to have been rejected upholding the termination of the complainant by OP.  The complainant though claims that he was paid certain salary during pendency of Writ Petitions but did not produce any documents to substantiate the same.  The complainant also did not produce copy of the order passed in Writ Petition & Writ Appeal disposed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.  Therefore, we are unable to know the nature of dispute between the parties and the judgment rendered, both in Writ Petition as well as in the Writ Appeal.

9. As stated above, the dispute is between an employee and employer.  The dispute admittedly does not pertain to any service rendered by OP to the complainant.  Let us find out as to whether the complainant falls within the definition of a ‘consumer’ as defined in the section.2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The ‘consumer’ as defined under the C.P Act, 1986 is as under:

(d) “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 payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person  but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;

10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, looking from any angle the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under the C.P Act, 1986.  Therefore, the dispute raised by the complainant cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ dispute so as to enable this Forum to determine the dispute, if any, between the complainant and the OP.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

11. Moreover the allegations made in the complaint are very vague and it is difficult to understand what exactly his grievance are against the OP.  Admittedly he challenged the termination before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by way of Writ Petition and thereafter the order passed by the single bench of the Hon’ble High Court has been challenged before division bench and the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has upheld the termination of the complainant while disposing of the Writ Appeal.  If at all the complainant had any complaints regarding non remitting of P.F account he should have raised the same before the Hon’ble High Court.  More over the dispute appears to be a labour dispute and the complainant has to approach the competent Forum for redressal, if any.  In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that, the dispute raised by the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ dispute and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  On this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

12. (Point No.2).  In view of the finding on issue No.1, point No.2 does not survive for determination.

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency. 

14. (Point No.3).  For the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following:  

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainants U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.  The parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 18^th day of November 2016)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 14.07.2016.

1. Sri.B.R Sanjay

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties dated 02.09.2016.

1. Sri.Nitesh Ranjan.

Document produced by the Opposite party - Nil

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln*