Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/784

THE MANAGER THE OXFORD SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

S A SHAREEF - Opp.Party(s)

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.784/2015

JUDGMENT DATED:28/04/2016

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.136/15on the file of CDRF, Kollam, order dated : 28.04.2015)

 

PRESENT

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SMT. A. RADHA                              : MEMBER

 

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          The Manager,

          The Oxford School,

          Umayanalloor P.O.,

          Kollam – 691589.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. R. Ram Mohan)         

 

                                                                   Vs.

 

RESPONDENT

 

          S.A.Shareef,

          Roshan Nivas,

Soorya Nagar – 97-A, Ayathil. P.O.,

Kollam – 691021.

 

JUDGMENT

         

SHRI. CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant is the opposite party in CC No.136/2015 in the CDRF, Kollam.  The complainant respondent was an employee of the appellant. It is alleged in the complaint that he was employed as security at the

school of the opposite party from 19.3.2009 till 30.09.2014.  Further allegations are that during the said period the appellant did not allow any casual leave or other leave. Salary was paid to him belatedly from July, 2009.  He worked for 15 days in a month and extra time.  But no extra amount was paid for extra work.   Gratuity was also not given to him.  The appellant denied his request to pay the benefits. Hence he approached the consumer forum.

          2.      The appellant on receipt of notice from the consumer forum did not appear and contest the mater. Relying on the affidavit of the complainant and Exts. P1 to P4 produced by him, the consumer forum allowed the complaint as prayed for.  The opposite party is challenging the order of the consumer forum.

          3.      It is pertinent to mention that the complainant claimed service benefits including gratuity. He was employed as security in the school of the appellant.  So he was offering the service and the appellant offered to pay for his services.  Deficiency in service can arise only on the part of the complainant and not on the side of the appellant who promised to pay for the services.  So no consumer dispute is involved on the allegations in the complaint.  Yet the consumer forum entertained the complaint and the fact that the appellant remained exparte is no justification in entertaining the complaint.  The terms of employment are governed by provisions of law or contract between the parties and a consumer forum is not the appropriate authority to enforce those

conditions. It is appropriate that consumer forums give serious consideration of the issues before them and pass orders.  In short, as the complaint was not sustainable the appeal is only to be allowed.

          4.      Two other aspects also require mention First aspect is that the complaint is seen allowed “as prayed for”.  This practice is only to be deprecated as problems are bound to arise in execution when such orders are passed.  Any order of the consumer forum should in specific terms state what are the reliefs granted to a complainant.  Secondly, the members of the consumer forum signed in the order are shown as advocates.  They are full time members of the consumer forum appointed by the government and once government job is accepted they are bound to suspend their practice as advocates so long as they continue as the members of the consumer forum.  So prefix “advocate” to their names in the order is not appropriate and they are advised to stop the practice forthwith. 

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order of CDRF, Kollam, in CC No.136/15 dated 24.8.2015 is set aside.  The complaint shall stand dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs in the appeal.

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

1. RADHA               : MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS       : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.784/2015

JUDGMENT DATED:28/04/2016

 

nb