Learned counsel for the appellant is present.

Respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are present in person.

Notices were issued to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by regd. post with AD on 1.3.2019. SR is not back. Since in the meantime more than 30 days have elapsed, notices against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are held to be sufficient.

On request and consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and  2, this appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

This appeal is directed against the ex parte order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, Rayagada in CC No. 10 of 2018.

By the impugned order the appellant has been directed to pay the balance loyalty bonus to the respondents with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of respective deduction till realization besides Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.

Heard.

The grievance of the respondents/complainants before the District Forum was regarding deficiency in service on the part of the appellant for non-payment of loyalty bonus to which the respondents were entitled on successful completion of the project or two years from joining whichever is earlier.

Complainants were appointed as Field/Site Engineer (Electrical) for  project named ODSSP. As per service condition, the salary of the complainants included a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards loyalty bonus payable to them only on successful completion of project or two years from the joining whichever is earlier. It is not disputed that there  was successful completion of the project. Since there was delay in payment of loyalty bonus, the complainants approached the District Forum.

It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the dispute raised by the respondents before the learned District Forum does not relate to consumer dispute. Hence, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The order having been passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and is liable to be set aside.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submit that since the complainants are entitled to loyalty bonus and payment was delayed, the complainants rightly approached the District Forum.

In course of hearing, it is also submitted that in the meanwhile they have received part of the loyalty bonus as indicated in a table in the operative part of the impugned order. The balance amount is yet to be paid.

In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant submits that loyalty bonus was paid to each of the complainants after making deduction for the days when the complainants were absent and reiterates that whether deduction ought to have been made for the period of absence is a service dispute  pure and simple. It does not amount to consumer dispute.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is apparent that payment of loyalty bonus is a service dispute. Grievance of the respondents/complainants before the learned District Forum was violation of service condition. Therefore, it is rightly pointed out that there is no scope for the Consumer Forum to entertain the dispute raised by the complainants. The learned District Forum have entertained the complaint without jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Respondents/complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum with regard to their claim, if any,

The statutory amount be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon, if any, on proper identification.