Order No. 02, Dated: 31.3.2015

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice due to non-payment of the admissible interest @G.P.F. scheme on his gratuity amount of Rs. 3, 15,810=00. In the prayer portion the complainant has prayed for admissible interest @GPF scheme from December 2008 to

1

November 2013 and due interest which has been disallowed from December 2013, compensation along with litigation cost Rs. 50,000=00 and penal interest from December 2008 till the next date of payment.

Today is fixed for admission hearing and the complainant is present personally by filing hazira. At the time of hearing on the admissibility of the complaint the complainant has advanced his argument as enumerated in the POC. We have carefully perused the POC as well as heard the argument advanced by the complainant and it is seen by us that admittedly the complainant was an employee of the Department of Posts, India and has made allegation against the said department in respect of his admissible interest on his gratuity amount. It is crystal clear from the POC that being an employee he has made this complaint against his employer.

Upon careful reading of 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 the 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 in which the employer is engaged. It is, therefore, difficult to conclude that in a public/ private/ Govt. sector relationship in between the employer and the employee there is any ingredient of a consumer as defined in the Section 2 (1) (d) of the said Act.  Again the definition of ‘service’ as given in the Section 2 (1) (o) of the C.P. 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 it’s 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 the 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. Admittedly in the case in hand the complainant was an employee of Department of Posts, Govt. of India and his allegation is

2

that the Ops have not  paid him the admissible interest @G.P.F. scheme on his gratuity amount after completion of his service life. Therefore there is a relationship by and between the complainant and the Department of Posts as employer and employee, so such dispute regarding non-payment of admissible interest @G.P.F. scheme on the gratuity amount of the complainant as alleged cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Forum. The complainant may approach before the competent court for redressal of his grievance.

Before the Consumer Forum in respect of filing any complaint the complainant should be a consumer but in the instant complaint there is no iota of evidence as well as no scrap of document to prove that the complainant is a consumer of the present Ops who has hired or availed of service from the Ops by making payment of due consideration amount.

As it is a simple case of relationship by and between an employer and employee such case cannot be maintainable within the ambit of C.P. Act, 1986. Moreover, today after closure of admission hearing the complainant has submitted one petition for withdrawal of this complaint. In view of the above-mentioned observation as made out in the body of this order, as well as, the petition filed by the complainant himself hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the complaint is dismissed without any cost and without being admitted.

                     (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                           President       

                                                                                                                      DCDRF, Burdwan

                     (Silpi Majumder)

                           Member

                     DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                                                (Silpi Majumder)

                                                                                    Member   

                                                                                 DCDRF, Burdwan