ORDERS ON MISC. APPLICATIONS/IAs ALONGWITH MAINTAINABILITY.

          The advocate for OP.No.1 & 2 has filed Misc. Application/IA for deletion/striking off OP.No.2 in the present complaint and further the OP.No.2 is neither a necessary nor proper party, whose presence is necessary for adjudication of the alleged claim of the complainant and there is no cause of action for the complainant to pursue the present complaint against OP.No.2. The OP.No.2 cannot be held liable for any acts or transactions arising out of any claim related to for pensionary benefits and further the Pension Fund is neither managed nor controlled by OP.No.2.

It is further contended that, the OP.No.1 has filed another Misc. Application/IA for jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum under Sec. 11 of the C.P. Act and maintainability of the present complaint which goes to the root of the matter. It is settled principle of law that, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies Established U/sec. 9 of the C.P. Act have no jurisdiction U/sec 11 of the C.P. Act to entertain a service dispute between an employer and employee relating to service conditions Governed by the Service Regulations. The OP.No.1 has filed the present application for deciding the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum as well as maintainability and further the complaint is only an attempt to seek a fresh option by a Provident Fund optee after settlement and receipt of his entire Provident Fund dues including his own contribution as well as OP.No.1’s contribution and interest thereon subsequent to his retirement in 2017 and further the complainant is not Consumer under the C.P. Act, because the relationship between the parties continued to be that of employer-employee even after his resignation, with regard to the terminal dues arising there from. Therefore, Op.No.1 is not a service giver as understood from Sec. 2 (1) (o) of the C.P. Act and the complainant is not eligible for pension under the said Regulations which are not applicable to them.    

It is further contended that, the complainant and other
ex-employees of the Erstwhile Sangli Bank and is being used as a weapon of harassment and oppression against ICICI Bank Ltd.,/Directors/ Managers, including OP.No.2 into granting pensionary benefits. Hence, the present applications are being filed at the first available opportunity and in any case within the statutory period of 30 days of receipt of the notice, in case the present applications are rejected, no harm or prejudice would be caused to the complainant and further the OP.No.1 contended that, the question of granting any reliefs to the complainant or payment of pensionary benefits or any compensation towards mental or physical agony or costs to the complainant does not arise. Hence, the OP.No.1 prays that, the preset complaint be dismissed in limine with compensatory costs.   

          The advocate for complainant has filed objections to the said Misc. Applications/IAs and stated that, the complainant was entrusted with the job of recovery in NPA and written off accounts in the District of Bagalkot and Bijapur including Jamkhandi Branch accounts. Further the complainant was coordinating with the Jamkhandi Branch and his headquarter was at Jamkhandi Branch and further at the time of retirement the pension is due for payment from the next date of retirement and the cause of action aroused at Jamkhandi, hence, the Jamkhandi branch is necessary party to this complaint and further the complainant is not claiming anything under service matter as alleged in the application of OP.No.2 and further the complainant’s claim is for benefits under pension scheme prepared in lieu of contributory provident Fund (CPF) linked and further in this regard, the complainant has submitted the judgement copy of NCDRC at the time of filing the complaint and OP.No.2 is playing tactics to delay the proceeding before the Forum and therefore the application of OP.No.2 for deletion/ striking off may be rejected.  

          The complainant further contended in another Mis. Application/IA that, the OP.No.1 has not specifically stated under which provisions the said application is moved and further complainant stated that, the present complaint is filed under C.P. Act, 1986 and the proceeding there under are summary in nature. The objections raised by the OP.No.1 are all false and he has not come before this Forum with clean hands and further the Hon’ble Forum already admit the matter after due hearing in respect of jurisdiction and there is no provision of preliminary issue under the C.P. Act as alleged in para 15 of the application filed by the OP.No.1 and further the said application is to frame and decide the preliminary issue, whether the complaint is maintainable for want of jurisdiction first, may be rejected and the said issue may be decided at the time of providing decision on the complaint. Hence, this objection.  

          Heard & Perused.

          On perusal of the complaint, Mis. Applications/IAs, objections and written arguments of both parties. It is admitted fact that, as on the date of filing the complaint, the present complainant is the Ex-employee of the Sangli Bank Ltd., which is amalgamated with OP.No.1 i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd., w.e.f. 19.04.2007 as per RBI order dtd:18.04.2007 and further the OP.No.1 & 2 has filed Misc. Application/IA for deletion striking off OP.No.2 in the present complaint and he is neither a necessary nor proper party, whose presence is necessary for adjudication of the alleged claim of the complainant and there is no cause of action for the complainant to pursue the present complaint against OP.No.2 and OP.No.2 cannot be held liable for any acts or transactions arising out of any claim related to for pensionary benefits and the Pension Fund is neither managed nor controlled by OP.No.2.

In this regard, the complainant stated that, the complainant was entrusted with the job of recovery in NPA and written off accounts in the District of Bagalkot and Bijapur including Jamkhandi Branch accounts and he was coordinating with the Jamkhandi Branch and his headquarter was at Jamkhandi Branch and further the complainant continued in service as employee of Op.No.1 Bank as per scheme of Amalgamation and he was retired from the services on 31.10.2017 at Jamakhandi Branch and the cause of action aroused at Jamkhandi and OP.No.2 is necessary party to this complaint and he is not claiming anything under service matter as alleged in the application and further the complainant’s claim is for benefits under pension scheme prepared in lieu of contributory provident Fund (CPF) linked. For that proposition, the complainant has not produced any cogent and reliable document to prove that, at the time of retirement he was working at Jamkhandi Branch, where he was posted as recovery cluster Manager and further the complainant has  made Op.No.2 as party to this complaint only for cause of action arose and further the complainant has produced judgement copy of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Revision Petition No.2798 of 2011 State Bank of Mysore V/s. S.K.Vidya at the time of filing the complaint, which is not applicable to this case. In our view that, at the time of retirement the complainant was working at Jamkhandi Branch is totally immaterial and the complainant is trying to create an illusion of cause of action, when there is none whatsoever. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove his case regarding the cause of action arose in this Forum. In order to prove the said contention contended by the OP.No.1 for cause of action arose, for that proposition the OP.No.1 has relied a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of T.Arivandandum V/s. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 467 and another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of I.T.C. Ltd., V/s. Dets Recovery Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 70, are aptly applicable to this case. So, in our consider view that, the OP.No.2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to this case.

 On perusal of the another Misc. application/IA and written arguments of both parties and documents, the OP.No.1 contended that, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies Established U/sec. 9 of the C.P. Act have no jurisdiction
U/sec. 11 of the C.P. Act to entertain a service dispute between an employer and employee relating to service conditions Governed by the Service Regulations and further the present application for deciding the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum as well as maintainability,
it is only an attempt to seek a fresh option by a Provident Fund optee after settlement and receipt of his entire Provident Fund dues including his own contribution as well as OP.No.1’s contribution and interest thereon subsequent to his retirement in 2017 and further the complainant is not Consumer under the C.P. Act, because the relationship between the parties continued to be that of employer-employee even after his resignation, with regard to the terminal dues arising there from. Therefore, Op.No.1 is not a service giver as understood from Sec. 2 (1) (o) of the C.P. Act and the complainant is not eligible for pension under the said Regulations which are not applicable to them.

In this regard, the complainant stated that, the OP.No.1 has not specifically stated under which provisions the said application is moved and the present complaint is filed under C.P. Act, 1986 and the proceeding there under are summary in nature. The objections raised by the OP.No.1 are all false and he has not come before this Forum with clean hands and further the Hon’ble Forum already admit the matter after due hearing in respect of jurisdiction and there is no provision of preliminary issue under the C.P. Act as alleged in para 15 of the application filed by the OP.No.1.  In order to prove the said contention, the complainant has not produced any cogent and reliable document and affidavit evidence to support of his case and he has produced Xerox copy of documents, circulars Pension Regulation Acts and citations are as under;

1. Xerox copy of Alumini Card issued by ICICI Bank.
2. Xerox copy of IBA Circular dtd:01.11.1993 Pension settlement with award staff.
3. Xerox copy of IBA Circular dtd:03.11.1993 MOU about pension with Officers Association.
4. Xerox copy of IBA Memorandum of instructions and Pension Regulations, 1993.
5. Xerox copy of Sangali Bank Ltd., Circular dtd:13.07.1994 Pension Scheme, 1993.
6. Xerox copy of IBA Clarification dtd: 20.07.1994 Clarification about certain issues.
7. Xerox copy of IBA Circular dtd: 27.11.1997 Option extended after implementation of Pension.
8. Xerox copy of Sangali Bank Ltd., Circular alongwith Pension Regulations, 1995.
9. Xerox copy of RBI Notification dtd: 18.04.2007 Order alongwith Scheme of Amalgamation.
10. Xerox copy of Letter from RBI dtd: 20.12.2006 Letter under RTI Act.
11. Xerox copy of Letter from ICICI Bank to Smt.Shirguppe dtd: 31.10.2013 About Pension Trust.
12. Xerox copy of Email from Mr.T.Shrirang, Executive of Bank dtd:18.09.2009 Pension Fund Created by ICICI Bank Ltd.,
13. Xerox copy of Salary slips of Ms.Gayatri Kinikar About PF position.
14. Xerox copy of Salary Slips of Ms.Arati Mushrif  About PF position.
15. Xerox copy of Variation of PF Trust Deed and IT approval dtd: 01.10.2008 & 24.03.2009.
16.  Xerox copy of Statutory Auditor’s Report on pension Fund creation on dtd: 29.09.2006.
17. Xerox copy of IBA Circular dtd: 30.03.2009 about retirees meetings.
18. Xerox copy of IBA Circular dtd: 03.03.2016 about retirees meetings.
19. Xerox copy of Letter to OP.No.1 dtd:11.06.2018 about one more option.
20. Xerox copy of Judgement of Hon’ble Nation Commission dtd: 27.08.2012 About Consumer one more option, Limitation.
21. Xerox copy of Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court dtd: 01.08.201 About payment of Interest @ 9% p.a. for delayed pension payment.
22. Xerox copy of Statement for claim of pension arrears and commutation amount.
23. Xerox copy of Settlement letters with Shri.S.V.Athavale and Shri.D.V.Rande (Ex-employees of Bank) issued by ICICI Bank Ltd., on dtd: 30.01.2012 & 22.10.2012.
24. Xerox copy of Order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in WP No.6699/2018 dtd: 14.09.2018.
25. Xerox copy of Case status window and order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court In WP No.5126/2017 dtd:19.07.2017.
26. Xerox copy of Conciliation proceeding before Dy.Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), at Mumbai for non-implementation of Pension Scheme dtd:29.08.06 to 09.04.2007.
27. Copy of the Judgement of Hon’ble Dist. Consumer Forum, Sangali Smt.Lata Kantilal Shah V/s. General Manager, Bank of India & Anr.

The above said citations/Judgement copies produced by the complainant are not helpful to the instant case and further the complainant is making an attempt to exert pressure on OP.No.1 & 2 to give him pensionary benefits.

On the other hand the OP.No.1 has raised contention for jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum under Sec. 11 of the C.P. Act and maintainability of the present complaint which goes to the root of the matter and further it is settled principle of law that, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies Established
U/s. 9 of C.P. Act have no jurisdiction U/sec 11 of the C.P. Act to entertain a service dispute between an employer and employee relating to service conditions Governed by the Service Regulations and further the complainant is only an attempt to seek a fresh option by a Provident Fund optee after settlement and receipt of his entire Provident Fund dues including his own contribution as well as OP.No.1’s contribution and interest thereon subsequent to his retirement in 2017. Therefore, the complainant is not Consumer under the C.P. Act, because the relationship between the parties continued to be that of employer-employee even after his resignation, with regard to the terminal dues arising there from. Therefore, Op.No.1 is not a service giver as understood from Sec. 2 (1) (o) of the C.P. Act and the complainant is not eligible for pension under the said Regulations which are not applicable to Ops. In this regard, the OP has produced list of documents are as under;

1. Xerox copy of common order passed in Civil W.P.No.3707 and 3708 of 2012 dtd: 19.12.2016.
2. Xerox copy of order passed in Civil WP No.8082 of 2012 dtd: 16.12.2016.
3. Xerox copy of order passed in SLP (DY.) No.15901 of 2017 dtd: 31.07.2017.
4. Xerox copy of common order passed in Criminal WP No.4673, 4674, 4675 of 2015 and 513 of 2016 dtd: 06.01.2017.
5. Xerox copy of summary of Account of the Statement of complainant dtd: 30.11.2017.
6. Xerox copy of Salary slips of the complainant for the month of Sep-2017 and Oct-2017.
7. Xerox copy of the Sangli Bank Ltd., (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995.
8. Xerox copy of the Board Resolution of Earstwhile Sangli Bank Ltd., dtd: 18.12.2000.
9. Xerox copy of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Earstwhile Salgli Bank and the Sangli Bank Employees Union and the Sangli Bank Officers Association dtd: 21.02.2000.
10.  Xerox copy of the Pension Trust Deed dtd:20.12.2004.
11.  Xerox copy of Approval of Income Tax Commissioner
        dtd: 20.12.2004.
12. Xerox copy of Memorandum of Understanding entered into with   the Representatives of Sangli Bank Officers Association dt:23.05.2007. 
13. Xerox copy of Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the Representatives of Sangli Bank Officers Association dt:24.07.2007.
14. Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the Representatives of Sangli Bank Officers Association dt:23.05.2007 Order of Income Tax Commissioner dt:24.07.2007.
15. Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the Representatives of Sangli Bank Officers Association dt:23.05.2007 Deed of Variation dt:07.06.2007.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we have gone through the available documents produced by both the parties, we are of the view that, the complainant is making an attempt to exert pressure on OP.No.1 & 2 to give him pensionary benefits, for which he is not eligible and further the complainant has approached this Forum for adjudication of his claim towards pension formulated by Erstwhile Sangli Bank under the said Regulations arising out of the contract of service (as mentioned in Paragraph No.11 of the present complaint) which is excluded from the definition of “service” U/s. 2 (1) (o) of the C.P. Act. Therefore, in view of the present complaint is not maintainable and this Forum does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. Therefore, the complainant has not proved as alleged in the complaint as well as in objection filed in the Misc. applications/IAs. In our view that, the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ and that, therefore he cannot claim relief under the Act and also the Hon’ble National Commission referred to the definition of ‘Consumer’ and of ‘service’ respectively in Clauses (d) and (o) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

So in our consider view that, after looking to the pleadings of the complainant, it is crystal clear that, the said service is not come under the perview of C.P. Act and there is no relation between complainant and OP as Consumer and Service Provider and the complainant has failed to established the said service are deficiency in service on the part of OPs. When there is no relation between the parties the question does not arise for deficiency in service or negligent on the part of the OPs and complainant is not entitled to maintain a complaint against the OPs as alleged in the deficiency and further the Complainant being a private employer cannot be a Consumer as per the definition U/s 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. There is no privity of any services or agreeing to pay certain amount towards services rendered and further in our considered view that, the claim for pension under the Pension Regulations was sustainable only if the employee had exercised the Pension Option in lieu of Provident Fund benefits within the stipulated time under the Pension Regulations. But, in this case, the complainant did not opt for Pension when such options were extended by Erstwhile Sangli Bank in the years 1994 & 2000 and the complainant is not entitled to exercise any option for pension as OP.No.1 under the Deed of Amalgamation was required to only continue the Pension Fund for this juncture also the present Complaint is not maintainable accordingly.

          In order to prove the said contention, the Ops have produced so many citations as per the list dtd: 12.04.2019 led down by Higher Court considered Govern Principles of these citations made applicable. Therefore, in our considered view that, this complaint is not maintainable accordingly. However, the said service is not adjudicated before this Forum, the complainant may approach appropriate authority for seeking relief and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain or to decide or determine the rights of the parties. With these findings, we proceed to pass the following;

                                        O R D E R

The complaint is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to approach appropriate authority for reddressal of his grievances elsewhere.