Henry Joseph,Lathe Operator V/S The Principal,High Range school - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

StateCommission

A/10/707

The Principal,High Range school - Complainant(s)

Versus

Henry Joseph,Lathe Operator - Opp.Party(s)

Joseph & Kuriyan

29 Oct 2011

ORDER

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram

First Appeal No. A/10/707

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District )

1. The Principal,High Range school

Madupatty,Munnar

BEFORE:
	HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 707/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 29..10..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

1. The Principal, : COMPLAINANTS

High Range School,

Madupatty.P.O.,

Munnar.

2. The Manager(Administration),

M/s Tata Tea Limited, Munnar.

(By Adv.Mathews K. Uthuppachan)

Vs.

1. Henry Joseph, Lathe Operator, : OPPOSITE PARTIES.

Madupatty Estate, MAduppatty Post.

(By Adv.B.A.Krishnakumar)

2. The Regional Secretary,

Central Board of Secondary Education,

Plot No.1630 A, ‘j’Block,

15^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

West Madras – 600 014.

(By Adv.G.Mohanachandran Pandarathil)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 3 in CC.116/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to restraining from issuing compulsory TC to the complainant’s daughter and also to provide the special fee concession which was given to the student when her father was an employee under the administration of the 3^rd opposite party till the disposal of the industrial dispute No.250/06 by the Deputy Labour Officer, Munnar. The appellants are also under orders to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs with interest at 12%.

2. The case of the complainant is that he was a Lathe operator in the establishment of which the 3^rd opposite party is the Manager. According to him he was transferred to another estate deliberately over the same he has preferred an industrial dispute through his union and the same is pending. In the meantime he was dismissed from service on 23.2.06. The complainant’s daughter is a student in the High Range School of which the 1^st opposite party is the Principal and the 3^rd opposite party also is supervising of the administration of the school. The child was asked to be withdrawn from the school from the close of the academic year ie 31^st March, 08. When his daughter attended the school in the V^th class after the school reopened in April 2008 she was sent out of the school with direction to obtain Transfer Certificate. There upon the complainant was forced to sit on strike with the child in front of the school. Under the orders of the Director of Public Instructions she was again admitted in class V. She was directed to pay special fee of Rs.1554/- per month. The fee of the child is Rs.248/- per month when the complainant was an employee of the 3^rd opposite party. Complaint is filed for getting compensation and for directing the opposite parties to collect regular fee only.

3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed version contending that the school was started in 1985 essentially to provide education to the children of employees of Tata Tea Ltd. The said school is an unaided one, owned and controlled by Tata Tea Ltd.. The school is unable to cater to the needs of around 13500 employees of Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Pvt. Ltd and 1500 employees of Tata Tea Ltd.. The admission to school is strictly on the basis of a selection process. Others are considered for admission based on the vacancies available. It is stated that only the children of parents working in Tata Tea Ltd/KADHP Co. are provided. In case of any parent leaving the company service the child is to be immediately withdrawn from the school. Provision is made in appropriate cases to enable the child to complete the academic year in question. It is specifically provided in the prospectus that the admission to the school is restricted to the children of the establishment of Tata Tea Ltd. and KADHP Co. The school is providing a high concession to the children of the employee of the above companies. The school also provides free education to the children of entitled employees. The complainant was an employee of Tata Tea Ltd and he was transferred with effect from 1.4.05. Subsequently the service of the complainant was terminated vide order dated 23.2.06. It is contended that the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act cannot be applicable to the case of the complainant. As such the complainant is no longer in the service of the company and is paying the fee which is applicable to the non employees of the Company. There is no special fee levied in the case of the child of the complainant. The child has been permitted to continue education in the school subjected to the payment of regular fee. It is also contended that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1; Exts.P1 to P10 and R1 to R12.

5. The contention that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties has not been considered by the Forum. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer of the opposite party and that the relationship is only contractual. We find that it is not disputed that the fee levied for the studies of the child used to be deducted from the salary of the complainant when he was in the service of the 3^rd opposite party. After his service was terminated also he was paying regular fee according to the opposite parties and special fee according to the complainant. In view of the fact there is consideration for the services rendered by the opposite parties we find that the complainant/ daughter can be treated as a consumer.

6. It is admitted that the services of the complainant has been terminated. The school is unaided one. All the same in view of the recognition provided by the Government and affiliation granted by the CBSE the opposite parties cannot contend that only stipulations as contained in the prospectus is applicable to the institution. It was also brought out in evidence that when there are vacancies of seats outsiders are also admitted on the basis of merit. Ext.P10 is the evidence produced to contend that the industrial dispute is still pending . Ext.P10 is the certificate from the Deputy Labour Officer dtd. 17.12.08 wherein it is mentioned that an industrial dispute numbered as 250/06 with respect to the dismissal of the complainant is still pending. Although it is contended by the opposite parties/ appellants that no such dispute is pending no evidence in support of the above contention has been produced. It was brought in evidence that the fee to be paid to the school is to be deducted from the salary of the complainant when he was in service. In view of Ext.P10 certificate from the Deputy Labour Officer and in the absence of any contra evidence it has to be treated that the industrial disputes case is still pending. As pointed out by the counsel for the respondent as per section 33(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the conditions of service of such workman is not to be altered during the pendency of proceedings before the authorities concerned. As the dispute as to the legality of the termination of the complainant is still pending. We find that the child of the complainant is entitled for the fee concession as a employee of the opposite parties. In the circumstances we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum directing the opposite parties not to issue compulsory TC to the child and also not to levy fee in excess of the fee collected from the employees of the 3^rd opposite party. All the same the direction to pay cost and compensation is set aside.