BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.116/2008

Between

Complainant : Henry Joseph

Lathe Operator,

Maduppatty Estate

Maduppatty-Post.

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Principal

Highrange School,

Maduppatty-Post.

(By Advs: Joseph Kodianthara &

Mathews K Uthuppachan &

Binu Mathew & Terry V James &

K.M. Sanu)

2. The Regional Secretary

Central Board of Secondary Education,

Plot No.1630 A, 'J' Block,

15th Main Road, Anna Nagar - west,

Madras - 600 014.

(By Adv: Joseph Pathalil)

3. The Manager (Administration)

M/s. Tata Tea Limited,

G H Complex,

Munnar - Kerala.

(By Advs: Joseph Kodianthara &

Mathews K Uthuppachan &

Binu Mathew & Terry V James &

K.M. Sanu)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant was a Lathe operator of Madupetty Estate, previously owned by the TATA Tea Limited and presently by the Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company, covered under the Plantation Labour Act and Rules. The complainant being a Lathe operator, is not transferable, but under victimization, he was transferred to Vagavurrai Estate and then to Guderale Estate. A fresh hand from Pallivasal estate was appointed in his place at Madupetty. So the complainant preferred an Industrial dispute through his union, before the appropriate authority and the same is pending. In the mean time the complainant was dismissed from service by the 3rd opposite party on 23/02/2006. The complainant's daughter Miss. Rozna Henry, is a student of first opposite party's School named "High Range School". The school is managed by the TATA Trust, and supervised by the 3rd opposite party, which is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, the 2nd opposite party. After the dismissel of the complainant from the 3rd opposite party's Estate, there was no hindrance to the education of the complainant's daughter till 18th February 2008. On 18th February 2008, the complainant was required to withdraw the child as close of the academic year that is, 31st March 2008, by the 1st opposite party through a letter. This was replied by the complainant. But on 16th April 2008, when the School re-opened, the complainant's daughter joined in her studies in Vth class, but in the evening she was sent out of School, with instructions to get Transfer Certificate from the 3rd opposite party, orally. When the complainant approached the 1st and 3rd opposite party, they required to withdraw the Daughter from the School. This forced the complainant to sit on strike with the child in front of the School, with notice. Based on the enquirey and directions by the Director of Public Instructor, she was admitted to class V as from 11/06/08. But the 1st opposite party directed to pay a special fee of Rs.1,554/- per month. Considering the future of the child, the complainant remitted the special fee claimed, under protest and the 1st opposite party admitted his child in class V. The fee for his child was, Rs.248/- per month before when the complainant was the employee of 3rd opposite party. So this petition is filed for getting compensation, also for giving directions to opposite party for collecting the regular fee in future and not the special fee.

2. As per the written version of 1st and 3rd opposite party the complainant is not a 'consumer' as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. The entire issue is one of a contract between the parties which has been comprised. "The High Range School" was started in the year 1985 essentially to provide education to children of employees of TATA Tea Limited. It is an un-aided school which is owned and controlled by the TATA Tea Limited. The school by itself is even today unable to cater the needs of around 13,500 employees of Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Private Limited(Earlier TATA TEA Limited) and around 1,500 employees of TATA Tea Limited. The Plantations of TATA Tea Limited was in the year 2005 transferred to another company viz. Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company Private Limited(here in after referred to as KDHP Co.). The admission to the school is strictly on the basis of a selection process. Admissions to LKG is made by selection constituting reputed people in the field of education and only those selected, based on the seats available are admitted. Others are considered based on the vacancies that arose. At all times it is absolutely essential that children studying in the High Range School must necessarily have their parents in Employment in Tata Tea Limited/KDHP company and it was felt necessary in the interest of all concerned that, the event of any parent leaving the company service for whatever reason, his/her child/children shall be immediately withdrawn from the school. However, provision is also made in appropriate cases to enable the child to complete the academic year in question. Clause 'd' of the prospectus under the head "Admission" reads as Admission to the school is restricted to children of permanent management staff and other employee of TATA Tea Limited and Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company private Limited in High Range, Kerala".

"Grant of admission to the condition that in the event of the parent leaving the company's service for whatever reason, his/her/child/children shall immediately be withdrawn from the school. On specific request, consideration shall be given to permit the child/children to continue in the school until the end of that particular academic year, on such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the school in this connection".
 

The education in the school is being imparted at a high concession to the children of the employees of TATA TEA Limited and Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company Private Limited. The school also provides free education to the children of entitled employees. The complainant was an Employee of TATA TEA Limited including the Madupetty Estate. He was transferred as a going concern to M/s Kannan Devan Hills Plantations company private Limited with effect from 1st April 2005. In the light of the transfer of the employment of the complainant to M/s Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company, the employer - employee relationship between TATA TEA Limited and Mr.Henry Joseph ceased to be so from that date. The complainant was terminated from service of said Kannan Devan Hills Plantations company private Limited vide order dated 23/02/2006.
 

The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be made applicable to TATA TEA Limited or the High Range School in matters pertaining to the employment of Henry Joseph, the complainant. The complainant has accepted that he is not an employee of TATA Tea Limited/KDHP Company and he has availed continued education of his child by paying the fees which is applicable to the non-employees of the company. Therefore he is now stopped from raising any complaint with regard to the fees. Further more, there is nothing known as special fees as alleged in the complaint. Based on the request of the parent, the child as a special case, has permitted to continue education at the school subject to payment of regular fees. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party.
 

3. As per written version of the 2nd opposite party, the school and management are bound to respect rules and regulations of the Central Board of Secondary Education. No student shall be discriminated on the basis of caste, creed, status etc. The dispute is only against the 1st and 3rd opposite party and so the 2nd opposite party may be exonerated.
 

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

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R12 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

6. The POINT:- Complainant was a Lathe Operator in the Madupetty Estate owned by Tata Tea Limited, who was dismissed from service on 23/02/2006. His daughter is a student of the school in which OP1 and OP3 are the principal and Manager respectively. When the school re-opened in April 2008 daughter of the complainant who was promoted to Vth standard also went to school, but by the evening, she was sent out of the school with instructions to get Transfer Certificate from 3rd opposite party. This was only because the complainant was dismissed from service of the 3rd opposite party's estate. The complainant was examined as PW1. As per PW1, there was no hindrance to the education of the complainant's daughter till 18th February 2008. A letter given by the 1st opposite party on 18/02/2008, required to withdraw the child on close of the academic seasons, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P2. That was replied by PW1, but on 16/04/2008 the daughter of the complainant was sent out of the school. Then PW1 personally approached 1st and 3rd opposite party at their offices. But they were adadament and required to withdraw the Daughter from that school. A representation was given to 1st opposite party by PW1 on 17/04/2008. Copy of the same is Ext.P5. But it was rejected as per Ext.P6 letter. Then the complainant was forced to sit on strike with her child in front of the school, with Notice. On based on the enquirey and direction by the Director of Public Instructors, they admitted to class V from 11/06/2008. But the 1st opposite party directed to pay a special fee of Rs.1,554/- per month. Considering the future of his daughter, he remitted the special fee claimed, under protest and so she was admitted in the school. Copy of the letter issued for admission, from 1st opposite party is marked as Ext.P7. The protest letter written to the 1st opposite party by PW1 is marked as Ext.P8. Ext.P1 is the receipt issued from 1st opposite party for the payment of fee and uniforms for Rs.9,12/- and for Rs.9,69.07/-. The 3rd opposite party was examined as DW1. As per DW1, the High Range School was set up in Munnar in Indukki District in the year 1985 essentially to provide education to children of employees of Tata Tea Limited and also KDHP Limited. The school is owned and controlled by Tata Tea Limited. The school by itself is even today unable to cater to the needs of around 13,500 employees of KDHP Company( earlier Tata Tea Limited) and around 1,500 employees of Tata Tea Limited. Admissions to LKG is made by selection constituting reputed people. It is absolutely essential that children studying in the High Range School must necessarily have their parents in employment in Tata Tea Limited/KDH Company. In the event of parent leaving, the company service for whatever reason, their child/children shall be immediately withdrawn from the school. It is written in the prospectus itself. The old prospectus is marked as Ext.R6 and the new prospectus is marked as Ext.R5. The fees are collected according to the designation of the employee. The education in the school is being imparted at high concession to the children of the employee of M/s Tata Tea Limited and Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company Private Limited. The school also provides free education to the children of entitled employees. The complainant was an employee of Tata Tea and was subsequently employed by KDHP Company in 2005, as the estates of Tata Tea including the Mattupetty Estate were transferred as a going concern to M/s Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company Private Limited with effect from 01/04/2005. The service of the complainant was terminated by the said KDHP Company Private Limited vide order dated 23/02/2006. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, cannot made applicable to Tata Tea Limited, pertaining to the employment of Sri.Henry Joseph. The school does not provide education to the children of the public at large and to the children of other government staff as alleged, except in exceptional cases where the management reserves its rights to do so. The education of the child "Rozna Henry" was at a highly concessional rate and a nominal fee of only Rs.228/- per month was required to be remitted because the complainant was an employee of Tata Tea Limited. The child was allowed to complete in the Academic year 2007-2008 even after the termination of her father's job. The complainant's misconduct had led to his dismissal. Sufficient time was also available to the complainant to make alternate arrangements for the continued education of his child in any other school in Munnar. The true copy of the CBSE affiliation Bylaws is marked as Ext.R7. True copy of the Attendance Register for the Academic year 2008-2009 of standard V is marked as Ext.R12.
 

7. The only dispute is whether the child of the complainant is entitled to continue the study in High Range School owned by the 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party with fee relaxation.
 

8. The complainant being a Lathe Operator is not transferable, but under investigation, he was transferred to Vagavurrai Estate and to Guderale Estate. So the complainant preferred an Industrial dispute through his union, before the appropriate authority and same is pending as ID No.250/06 of the Deputy Labour Officer, Munnar. Violating the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act 1947, the services of the complainant was dismissed by the 3rd opposite party on 23/02/2006. Ext.P10 is the certificate issued from Labour Officer Munnar, stating that the matter is pending as No.250/06 regarding the dismissal of Mr.Henry Joseph.
 

9. As per the opposite party, the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be made applicable to Tata Tea Limited or the High Range School in matters pertaining to the employment of Sri. Henry Joseph. The child was admitted in the School only because she was the daughter of the employee of Tata Tea. But PW1 deposed that, it is a public school, children of the non-employees of the Tata Tea also admitted in the school. It is also clear from Ext.P7 the letter written from 1st opposite party stating that "kindly pay the tuition fee which is applicable to the non-employees of the company. You will continue to pay this fee until yours Industrial Dispute is resolved". So, the non-employee's children are also studying there. Also it is admitted by the 1st opposite party that the Industrial Dispute of the complainant is pending. The daughter of the complainant was studying in the school, was compulsory directed to receive Transfer Certificate by the 1st opposite party. The complainant and his child constrained to sit strike in front of the school, for her re-admission. The child was re-admitted only after cancelling the fee concessions.
 

10. But we think that even though the complainant was dismissed from service, the matter is pending before a legal proceeding. So it is not disposed by the authority. So it is not proper to dismiss his child from the school because of that. The fee concessions given to the child shall not be cancelled before termination of Industrial Dispute. The child studying in Vth standard is not responsible for the act of her father or for the act of 3rd opposite party against her father. She should not be suffered for that. Dismissing the child from the school, or directing the child to receive compulsory Transfer Certificates without any act of the child will always affect the study of the child. Even, "sit strike" was made by the child with her father. These things have affected mental agony to the child as well as the parents. The child is paying fee to the opposite party for studying. The principal of the school should not stand in the way of the good education of the student. These actions will always effects mentally because she is studying only in Vth standard. So the act of the opposite party is a gross deficiency in their service and they have to pay Rs.1,000/- for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the child.

Hence the petition allowed. The OP1 and OP3 are restrained from issuing compulsory Transfer Certificate to the complainant's daughter "Rozna Henry" from the High School Madupetty, for the reason that the complainant is dismissed from service from Madupetty Estate. The fee concessions given to the student when her father was an employee of Madupetty estate should not be reduced until the disposal of Industries Dispute as 250/06 before the Deputy Labour Officer, Munnar as per Ext.P10. The 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and sufferings 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 further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Henry Josep

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Pratap Ramdas

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Copy of receipt dated 10/05/2007 and 26/06/2006.

Ext.P2 - Copy of Letter dated 18/02/2008.

Ext.P3 - Copy of Reply Letter dated 26/02/2008.

Ext.P4 - Copy of Letter to 2nd opposite party, dated 26/02/2008

Ext.P5 - Copy of Letter to 1st opposite party, dated 17/04/2008

Ext.P6 - Copy of Letter from 1st opposite party, dated 08/05/2008.

Ext.P7 - Copy of Letter from 1st opposite party, dated 10/06/2008

Ext.P8 - Copy of Letter dated 11/06/2008

Ext.P9 - Copy of Fees receipt dated 16/06/2008

Ext.P10 - Certificate issued by the Deputy Labour Officer, Munnar dated 17/12/2008.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Copy of Letter dated 18/02/2008.

Ext.R2 - Copy of Letter dated 08/05/2008

Ext.R3 - Copy of Letter dated 10/06/2008

Ext.R4 - Copy of application for Admission.

Ext.R5 - Copy of new Prospectus and Application Form.

Ext.R6 - Copy of old Prospectus and Application Form.

Ext.R7 - Copy of Application Form.

Ext.R8 - Extension of provision affiliation copy dated 13/09/2002

Ext.R9 - Affiliation Bye-Laws.

Ext.R10(series) - Copy of Montfort School Fee Regulations

Ext.R11(series) - Copy of Carmelagiri Public School Fee Details

Ext.R12 - Copy of Attendance Register for the year 2008-2009.