Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/506/2013

Puri oil Mills Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sandhu Security And Allied Services - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Kumar Gupta

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No.506  of 2013.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 11.07.2013

                                                                                          Date of decision: 13.07.2016.

Puri Oil Mills Limited having its Registered Office at 302, Jyoti Shikhar Building, 8, District Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, through its authorized person and Company Secretary Sh. Rajesh Keshry.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                                                Versus

 

1. Sandhu Security and Allied Services (Regd.) having its registered office at 186/12A, Ram Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, through its Partner Sh. Jarnail Singh.
2. Sh. Jarnail Singh Sandhu son of Sh. Nanak Singh, resident of House No. 185/3, Ram Nagar Colony, Gulab Nagar, Jagadhri, Partner Sandhu Security and Allied Service (Registered) 186/12A, Ram Nagar colony, Jagadhri.    

                                                                                                                                                                            …Respondents.

  

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Ajay Shandaliya, Advocate, counsel for OPs.  

             

 

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed by the complainant firm under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant firm is a limited company having its registered office at Delhi and running two mini hydro-electric units/plants in the District of Karnal and District Yamuna Nagar. Sh. Rajesh Keshry is a company Secretary duly authorized vide resolution of the Board of Directors of the company to file complaint in question on behalf of complainant.  In the month of April, 2011, the complainant company was in need of security guards for giving security to its plants/units and for the said purpose, OPs approached the complainant company to render its services by providing 6 security guards . It was told by the OPs that security guards are best quality guards. During the negotiation it was mutually agreed that minimum wages, as decided by the Government of Haryana, would be payable to the guards by the OPs and it was made clear that these guards/persons will remain the employees of the OPs. During the process of availing services of the OPs by the complainant, the security guards employed by the complainant, made a complaint that the Ops are not paying full wages/salary to them and it was also brought to the knowledge of the complainant that EPF has also not been deposited in the account of the security guards being charged by the OPs from the complainant. In this regard, the complainant contacted the OPs and entire matter was brought to their knowledge and Ops were requested to submit the actual wages register duly signed by the security guards and EPF statement of each guards but the OPs failed in this regard. In this way, the OPs violated the Labour Law including Provident Fund Act, Minimum Wages Act, Contract Labour Act, Service Tax Act etc. and a number of letters were written in this regard but the Ops failed to respond in this regard. As the OPs failed to produce the relevant record and further fail to make the payment to the security guards as per their contract, hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Lastly, prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the excess amount of minimum wages, EPF charged from the complainant in excess alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum and further to pay compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and Resolution of the Company in favour of the complainant as Annexure C-1 and letter written by OPs to the complainant dated 30.04.2013 as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.   

4.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; no cause of action to file the present complaint; no deficiency in service on the part of OPs; complainant firm should have to be disclosed what the excessive amount, which has claimed in this complaint and in the absence of strict proof, the complainant cannot seek any relief; complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that OPs Firm is providing men power for security purpose and consequently in the month of April 2011, the complainant’s official approached the Ops at Yamuna Nagar and at the demand of complainant firm after proper negotiation, on 25.04.2011, OPs firm provided 6 person i.e. 3 persons for each unit/plant. After about 1 ½ years, the intention of the complainant firm turned malafide and the complainant firm stopped payment of September, 2012, as since very first of the September, 2012, to 31^st October 2012, the complainant firm did not pay the settled amount to the OPs Firm. The complainant firm not only retained the payment of OPs Firm for 2 months which was due against the services of all 6 persons which amount to Rs. 92656/- vide Bill No. 735, 736, 759 and 760 dated 30.09.2012 and 31.10.2012 respectively, but the complainant firm also engaged 4 persons directly by dismissing the services of two persons, illegally and unlawfully, without consent of the OPs Firm. In this regard OPs Firm sent a legal notice to the complainant firm on 20.04.2013 but instead of making the payment the complainant firm in the garb of present complaint, wants to grab the amount of the OPs firm. On merit, controverted the stand taken by the complainant firm and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     OPs Firm failed to produce any evidence despite so many opportunities; hence, evidence of the OPs Firm was closed by court order on 11.05.2016.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. 7.                The only grievances of the complainant firm is that the OPs Firm were not paying the salary to the security guards provided by the OPs firm as per Minimum Wages Act, Provident Fund Act, Labour Act and Service Tax etc. and further the OPs firm violated various labour law and further the OPs firm has failed to produce register of service to verify compliance of minimum wages paid to the security guards by the OPs firm. As the OPs firm was not paying salaries as per agreement so, the work of the complainant firm was suffering and the complainant firm is entitled to get refund of the excess amount paid to the OPs by way of wages as well as EPF and Service Tax etc. whereas on the other hand, the case of the OPs firm is that the complainant firm have no concern whatsoever with the affair of the OPs firm. Further, if the security guards were having any grievances then they might have approached to the OPs Firm as these security guards were provided by the OPs Firm to the complainant and were employees of the Ops. All the allegations has been falsely leveled by the complainant firm just to grab the salary of 2 months of the security guards.

8.                     After going through the version of both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present complaint as the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent evidence to prove the version as alleged in the complaint. Even, the complainant did not bother to place on file any agreement executed between the Ops. Further, the complainant firm has also not disclosed the exact or approximate amount which was paid in excess to the OPs firm and the complainant firm was entitled to get the refund. Furthermore, the complainant firm has neither placed on file any letter issued to the OPs firm  nor any copy of complaint made by the security guards to the complainant firm as alleged in the complaint. Even, the complainant firm has also totally failed to prove that complainant firm suffered any loss due to the act of the OPs firm. As such, without any documentary evidence we cannot hold that there was any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

9.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 13.07.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.