| Complaint Case No. CC/11/87 |
| | | | 1. GIRISHKUMAR | | S/O NARAYANAN,KUNNATH HOUSE, MELATTUR, P.O. MALAPPURAM. | | 2. MAMU | | S/O MUHAMMED KANJIRANGATH, P.O ARAKKINAR CALICUT -673028 | | CALICUT | | KERALA | | 3. SUDHEER.N.B | | S/O BASHEER, 6/721, JUTHAN PARAMBU, BAZAR ROAD, KOCHI-2, MATTANCHERRY. | | 4. K.A. ANEESH | | KARIPPARA HOUSE, MANALUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. | | 5. BABURAJ.A | | VADAKKUMKARA HOUSE AYANATTUKONAM, PANALAL.P.O., VALLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM | | 6. M.R RATHEESH KUMAR | | PEDIKKOOTTIL HOUSE 'KANAL ROAD EDAKKULAM P.O PIN 680688 | | 7. VINOD A.K | | CHARIVUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIIEKKAIPADY, KOMBAZHA.P.O PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT | | 8. KRISHNAKUMAR.S | | SIKHARATHIL HOUSE, KURUMALA, CHELAKKARA (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT | | 9. RADHAKRISHNAN. A.V | | KELAMBATH HOUSE BLATHOOR, KALLADY.P.O IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT | | 10. K.CHANDRABOSE | | ARTIST KOOTHUP[ALACKEL,KOOTHUP[ARAMBU, IRINJALAKKUDA.P.O, PIN-680125 | | 11. SHCAJI.PV. | | ARTIST, PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. M/S PULARI AIR TRAVELS | | RAVIPURAM, KURUSUPALLI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-15(REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER) | | 2. MR. RAJAN.JOSE, | | MANAGER PULARI AIR TRAVELS, ERNAKULLAM, KOCHI -15 |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | EFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM. Date of filing : 11/02/2011 Date of Order : 27/08/2012 Present :- Shri. A. Rajesh, President. Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member. C.C. No. 87/2011 Between
1. Girishkumar, | :: | Complainants | S/o. Narayanan, Kunnath House, Melattur. P.O., Malappuram. 2. Sudheer. N.B., S/o. Basheer, 6/721, Juthan Parambu, Bazar Road, Kochi – 2, Mattancherry. 3. K.A. Aneesh, Karippara House, Manalur. P.O., Thristrict Dist. 4. Baburaj. A., Vadakkumkara House, Ayanattukonam, Panalal. P.O., Vallanadu, Thiruvananthapuram. 5. M.R. Ratheesh Kumar, Pedikkoottil House, Kanal Road, Edakkulam. P.O., Thrissur – 680 688. 6. Vinod. A.K., Charivuparambil House, Kallekkalpady, Kobazha. P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist. 7. Mamu, S/o. Muhammed, Kanjirangath, P.O., Arakkinar, Calicut – 673 028. 8. Krishnakumar. S., Sikharathil House, Kurumala, Chelakkara (via.), Thrissur Dist. 9. Radhakrishnan. A.V., Kelambath House, Blathoor, Kallady. P.O., Irikkur, Kannur Dt. 10. K. Chandrabose, Artist, Koothupalakkal, Koothuprambu, Irinjalakkuda. P.O., Pin – 680 125. 11. Shaji. P.V., Artist, Padikkaparambil House, Ettumanoor. P.O., Kottayam Dist. |
| (Compts. by Adv. Nagaraj Narayanan, Empire Building, 4th Floor, East of High Court, Kochi – 682 031. |
And
1. M/s. Pulari Air Travels, | :: | Opposite Parties | Ravipuram, Kurusupalli Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 15, Rep. by its Manager. 2. Rajan Jose, Manager, Pulari Air Travels, Ernakulam, Kochi – 15, |
| (Op.pts. by Adv. Babu Joseph, Opp. Kumar Residency, M.C. Road, Perumbavoor) |
O R D E R A. Rajesh, President. 1. The facts of the complainants' case are as follows : The complainants along with 15 other persons were recruited by the 1st opposite party for employment in Sultanate of Oman. When the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party, they had stated that the monthly salary payable for complainants 1 to 9 was Rs. 13,500/- each for 8 hours work per day and 2 hours overtime. The salary for the complainants 10 and 11 was Rs. 16,500/- for 8 hours work per day and 2 hours over time. Believing the assurances of the opposite parties, the complainants appeared for the interview of the Services and Trading Company, Muscat and the company selected the complainants along with other 15 persons. Before signing the agreement, the complainants went through the agreement and noticed that as per the agreement the basic salary for the painter is only 65 Oman Rials, ie. equivalent to Rs. 7,345/-. Though the complainants enquired about the salary stated in the agreement with the opposite parties, they promised that the complainants 1 to 9 would earn a monthly salary of Rs. 13,500/- and the complainants 10 and 11 would earn a monthly salary of Rs. 16,500/-. The complainants reached Muscat on various dates from August 2010 to November 2010. On receipt of the first month's salary, the complainants came to know that they were misled by the opposite parties regarding the remuneration and other benefits. The complainants met the General Manager and the Supervisors of the company, but they abused and manhandled the complainants and the complainants were hospitalised. The salary was not given by the company as agreed by the opposite parties and food and allowances were denied. The complainants settled all the issues with the company and returned to India. The complainants approached various authorities including the Chief Minister of Kerala, Home Minister of Kerala and the Thevara Police to get their grievances redressed. In the meantime, the opposite parties caused to issue a lawyer notice demanding Rs. 35,500/- to which the complainants replied. The complainants are entitled to get the balance salary from the opposite parties together with the amounts incurred for the medical/hospital charges and transporting expenses together with a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each. Thus, the complainants are entitled to get Rs. 90,000/- each from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :- The complaint is not maintainable for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The General Manager and Senior Manager of the STC directly interviewed the complainants and recruited them for employment. The opposite parties are not a party to the labour contract separately entered into between each of the complainants and the recruiting company. The said company directly informed all the terms and conditions to the complainants before entering into the agreement. The complainants were not ready to work with the STC and conducted strike against the company, and thereafter, the complainant voluntarily resigned from the employment without informing the opposite parties. All the other persons selected along with the complainants are still working in Oman without any problem. The complainants are liable to pay the amount for return ticket and food and accommodation of the complainants. The complainants are liable to pay the amount to the company. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
3. The 1st and 2nd complainants were examined as PWs 2 and 1 respectively. Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of PW1 and Exts. A10 to A21 were marked on the side of PW2. The 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 90,000/- each from the opposite parties as compensation?
5. To sum up, the following issues were not disputed by the parties :- The opposite parties published an advertisement in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 13-06-2010 inviting employees for the vacancy of painters and artists evidenced by Ext. A10. The complainants approached the opposite parties and expressed their willingness. Through the opposite parties, the complainants appeared for an interview which was conducted by Services and Trade Company and the Sultanate of Oman, the employer. On 22-07-2010, each of the complainants entered into separate employment contract with the employer. After the execution of the agreement, the complainants joined service at Oman.
6. According to the complainants, at the time of execution of the agreement between the complainants and the employer, they had highlighted the difference in salary stated in the agreement and the offer made by the opposite parties which amounts to a claim of detriment and prejudice. It is stated that the complainants had to suffer lot of inconveniences at Oman at the hands of the employer. On the contrary, the opposite parties vehemently contended that the complainants were aware of the terms and condition of the employment contract at the time of execution of the same, but which were not complied with. They maintain that they had not given any assurance or offer apart from the written agreement between the complainants and the employer.
7. Admittedly, the complainants had been getting the emoluments offered by their employer in terms of the agreement entered into between them. During evidence, PW's 1 and 2 categorically deposed that they noticed the conditions regarding the salary and other emoluments not consistent with the offer made by the opposite parties, but notwithstanding agreed to. The complainants contended that an employee of the 1st opposite party by name Usha had assured the complainants that the employer would pay a salary of Rs. 13,500/- to the complainants 1 to 9 and Rs. 16,500/- to the complainants 10 and 11. But nothing is on record to substantiate the same amounting only to hearsay evidence. The onus is heavily on the complainants to substantiate their contentions in this Forum, in which they have failed substantially. Alone for which priority of mercy cannot be sustained instead of law or justice. Notwithstanding anything at all, it might not be unseeming that an inference can be drawn that this complaint is a ruse to circumvent or depreciate cause of action in the Civil Suit, which has been admittedly referred to in evidence in this case. This Forum is not necessarily commend on that further. Moreover, we are at a loss as to why the complainants have not arrayed the employer in this complaint who need have been.
8. For reasons stated above, this Forum is of the conclusive affirmation that for reasons not proved as to the claim of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, they are not to be held so responsible. The prayer sought fails and is disallowed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of August 2012 Sd/- A. Rajesh, President. Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X Complainant's Exhibits :- Exhibit A1 | :: | Employment contract dt. 22-07-2010 | “ A2 series | :: | Salary slips | “ A3 | :: | Credit invoice dt. 13-11-2010 | “ A4 | :: | Copy of the complaint 03-01-2011 | “ A5 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 06-01-2011 | “ A6 | :: | Lawyer notice dt. 28-12-2010 | “ A7 | :: | Copy of the reply notice dt. 02-02-2011 | “ A8 | :: | A postal receipt | “ A9 | :: | An acknowledgment card | “ A10 | :: | An advertisement in the newspaper | “ A11 | :: | Copy of the receipt dt. 01-12-2010 | “ A12 | :: | A postal receipt | “ A13 | :: | An acknowledgment card | “ A14 | :: | Employment contract dt. 22-07-2010 | “ A15 | :: | Salary slips | “ A16 | :: | A lawyer notice dt. 28-12-2010 | “ A17 | :: | Registration card | “ A18 | :: | Employment contract dt. 22-07-2010 | “ A19 | :: | Salary slips | “ A20 | :: | Copy of the receipt dt. 06-12-2010 | “ A21 | :: | A lawyer notice dt. 28-12-2010 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :- Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the employment contract | “ B2 | :: | An Agreement dt. 27-07-2010 | “ B3 | :: | A copy of the letter dt. 22-11-2010 | “ B4 | :: | Copy of the complaint in O.S. No. 30/11 |
Depositions :- |
|
| PW1 | :: | Sudheer. N.B. - 2nd complainant | PW2 | :: | Girishkumar K. 1st complainant. | DW1 | :: | Rajan Jose - 2nd op.pty |
========= | |
