This is a case under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.                                                                                                                                     

Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant was appointed at the office of the O.P. on 15.06.1995 and later was transferred (Promoted) for the post of Asst. General Manager (Plant) on 27.06.1996, at the office of the O.P. being (bearing) Employee code: E- 5756 and lastly the Complainant was posted at Rammam Hydro Electric Power Project, NTPC, Vill- Lodhoma, District: Darjeeling, West Bengal.

 That subsequently on 22.12.2020 the Complainant had issued Resignation letter from service, through proper channel to the Project-in-Charge of the O.P. His resignation was effective from 01.01.2021.  The complainant requested the O.P to adjust the days which the Complainant was absent for receivable dues, in course of employment.

In another part, the complainant had also claimed PF from the O.P and previous due salaries, for which the complainant had worked for 5 months, in Ahmadabad site.

According to the complainant, by this way the O.P. had cheated the Complainant, fraudulently and dishonestly, by giving assurance of repaying the aforesaid amounts of PF, remuneration amounts of the Complainant, for which the Complainant had got right to get, as per the established principle of law.

The claims of the complainant are as follows.

1. To  pay the amount of Rs. 11,03,823/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Three Only) as an arrear of Provident Fund;
2. Pass a direction upon the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs. 7,41,786/- ( Rs. Seven Lakh Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Six Only) as balance due remuneration amounts, along with the remuneration deducted unnecessarily for the period of 33 days, for which the Complainant was physically attending the duties at the site during the Lock Down, to the Complainant on account of compensation, for deficiency in service and resorting   to unfair trade practices as well as for harassment, mental torture and agony caused to the Complainant;
3. Pass a direction upon the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 300000/- to the Complainant on account of compensation, mental torture and agony caused to the Complainant;
4. Pass a direction upon the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 200000/- to the Complainant on account of compensation for deficiency in service and resorting to unfair trade practice;
5. Pass a direction upon the O.P to pay Rs. 50000/- being legal expenses and cost of the proceedings;

             Total claim amount is Rs. 2395609/- (Rs. Twenty-Three Lakh Ninety-Five Thousand Six Hundred and Nine Only).

Points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for?

All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

  Consumer means any person who

(i)                 buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)               hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;

 Definition of service as under:-

 service means of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news of other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;

Upon careful reading of the definition of consumer it does not appear that in a relationship of employer and employee there is any element of buying or selling of any goods for a consideration either by the employer or by the employee from the other.

Certainly, employer hires the services of an employee for a consideration. Again, if such service by the employee to the employer for a consideration is not by way of a contract of personal service in between the employer and the employee but evidently such service has been availed of by the employer from the employee for its commercial purposes for which the employer is engaged. It is, therefore, difficult to conclude that in a public and/or private relationship in between the employer and the employee there is any ingredient of a consumer as defined in the said Act.

Again, the definition of service as given in this Act is an inclusive definition and includes any kind of service which is made available to potential users excepting services rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. It is no doubt true, that where service of the employee is hired by the employer, there the employer is the potential user of the service which is made available to the employer by its employee. It is not that employer is rendering any service to the employee by hiring him for a consideration, although in a broader sense he may be doing some service to the nation and the unemployed mass by providing employment.

Thus, in a relationship of employer and employee it cannot be said in any manner whatsoever that an employee is a potential user of the services rendered by his employer during the period of his employment.

The dispute disclosed in complaint filed before this District consumer commission is not a consumer dispute under consumer  It is a service dispute and District consumer dispute redressal commission is not empowered to hear the complaint, regarding dispute between employer and employee.

            Learned advocate for complainant, conceded the fact that the dispute disclosed in complaint is not a consumer dispute but it is a service dispute between the employer and employee.

In keeping with the principles laid down in consumer protection act 2019, we hold that the complaint in the present case is not maintainable before the District consumer dispute redressal commission under the provisions of the Act.

In view of submissions made by learned Counsel for the complainant, we hold that the complaint filed by complainant before this District consumer dispute redressal commission should be dismissed with liberty to complainant to move before the appropriate Forum, in accordance with law.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

The complaint case number CC/21/2022 stands dismissed, as the complainant is not a consumer and the case is not maintainable. No costs. Complainant is at liberty to move appropriate Forum in accordance with law.

Copies of the Judgment be delivered free of costs to the complainant.