CC/494/2023

                        Vinay Kumar Vs. Keshav Kumar Manager etc.

Present:       Complainant in Person.

1.                This complaint presented before us for consideration on the point of admission of the complaint.

2.                At the time of admission of complaint, we are to see if the complainant is a consumer or not as in the complaint, the complainant has claimed directions to the OP No.1 for making appropriate calculations and to clear the said PLI Benefit of the employees and other incumbents with a specific period of four days. The complainant has submitted that he retired as Manager a/cs from Food Corporation of India and he was known for fair dealing and relentless service and he is entitled for Productivity Linked Incentive (PLI) Benefit from the Food Corporation of India. The complainant submitted his claim with the OP No.1 who is responsible for making the appropriate calculations and is also under obligation to clear the said PLI benefit of the employees and other incumbents with a specific period of four days.

3.                The point to be considered at this juncture is as to whether the complainant is consumer or not and if not, whether the complaint is maintainable and can be admitted or not.

                   It has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in FA No.10/156, decided on 19.05.2010 titled as ‘Shri Ved Prakash Juneja Vs. Director CGHS, New Delhi and another’ that ‘it can be deemed, as well settled law that matters of service relating to salaries, facilities, allowances and perks etc. are governed by usual contract between the employee and the employer, whether the employer be govt. or a private person. There are rules and regulations for determination of such matters and the employee is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act’. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in F. A. 638/2016, titled as ‘N. K. Philips Vs. Elegant Car Accessories Pvt.’ that ‘the case for recovery of salary cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum’. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission, West Bengal, in F. A. 231/2010, decided on 06.12.2010, titled as ‘Chief Exe. (Works), The Hooghly Vs. Sri Sachin Kundu’ that ‘there is no relationship of consumer between the employer/appellant and the complainant/respondent and consequently there cannot be any deficiency of service by the employer for the purpose of payment of gratuity to the employee by the employer. In that view of the matter we hold that the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in this regard is not maintainable in the Fora constituted under the said Act.’

4.                Thus, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi, matters of service relating to salaries, facilities, allowances, monthly and quarterly incentives, special incentives, encashment of earned leaves etc. whether the employee be govt. or private person, cannot be maintained as consumer complaint in Consumer Commission and the complaint of the complainant is disposed of with the observation that the complainant is not consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the Record Room.          

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

03.01.2024         Member                          Member             President