Orissa

Rayagada

CC/236/2016

Deenabandhu Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s HTC Global Service Pvt., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

23 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 236 / 2016.                                Date.      23   .5  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,              Preident.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Deenabandhu Panda,  S/O: Ramesh  Chandra  Panda,  Brahmin Street,  Po: Gunupur,Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                                            …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The    Chief Executive Officer, M/S HTC Global Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Phase-II, MEPZ Thambaram, Chennai .

                                                                                    .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri Manoj Kumar Rath, Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of salary  and other legal dues  amounting to Rs.1,44,375/-   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

                On being noticed the  O.Ps. appeared through their learned counsel  and submitted that  salary payment  benefits  is an independent Act  and  there is procedure for appeal, the party has to prefer   appeal at first instance  before the  Labour Court .  Under the circumstances it is prayed that the case is preliminarily not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986 and prayed to drop the proceeding against the O.Ps 1 & 2 for the best interest of justice.

 

Heard arguments from the    O.P.    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, filed by the parties. 

 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties & vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                FINDINGS.

 

On perusal of the record  it is revealed that the learned counsel for the O.P.  vehemently argued  that the case is not maintainable  preliminary under the C.P. act, 1986.

 

On perusal of the record it is revealed that the  O.P. was issued  appointment order on Dt. 23.5.2016 in favour of the complainant (copies of the appointment order is in the file which is marked  as Annexure-I).  The complainant was ready to work with the O.Ps office but the persons of O.P’s  office  was not allowed for continuation of service of the complainant.  Hence the complainant  as per the terms and condition of the appointment letter  was entitled to get the termination  salary for  three months i.e. Rs. 24,792/- x  3 = Rs.74,376.00.  In total  with other allowances  the complainant was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,44,375.00 if the O.P. wanted to terminate the service as per their choice.  So the complainant   claimed  a  sum of Rs. 1,44,735/-  to the O.P when denied  the complainant has filed the present  C.C. case  before the forum

 

 

 

         

 

 

Now the issues before this forum are:-

1)Whether the complaint petition is maintainable in this forum ?

2)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

3. If so, the nature of relief to be granted to the complainant ?

 

On examination of the merits of the case It is understood that it is  the  case of  an  employee against the employer. Section  2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 lays down that “Consumer” means any person who   hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under  any system  of deferred payment .  In the instant case the complainant can not be said to  have  hired the services of the O.ps for any consideration.  In such circumstances the allegation with regard to the deficiency in service of the O.Ps does not arise to be adjudicated upon by the District Consumer Forums  under  section- 12 of the C.P. Act   so the complainant’s petition  against the O.Ps fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this forum. 

When  the  case is not maintainable before the forum  we need not discuss the other issues on merit.

This forum relied  citation  it is held and reported in  C.P.R. 2011(4) page No. 128   where in the hon’ble National Commission  observed “Employee is not a consumer of his employer”.

 

For redressal  of   grievance     relating to  service matter  for non payment of   salary by the O.Ps, there  is  a  Labour Court, where the  complainant can agitate his grievance for its redressal .    The  O.Ps  whom the complainant was working is neither the service provider nor the  complainant who was  working as  Sr. Software Engineer  is a consumer. The  complaint petition  is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

The grievance of the complainant can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this forum.  As the   case is not maintainable before the forum  we  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Hence, the claim of the   complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is open to  complainant   ordinary remedy to approach proper forum.      As this forum had no option in law but to deny any relief  on complainants were hopelessly barred by jurisdiction. 

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

ORDER.

            In resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is  disposed of.

                The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act, as per the law laid   down by  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC  583.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this               23rd.   Day of   May,  2018.

 

               

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President