Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/113

Sri Gopal Debnath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Sandjeev Chatopadhya, Branch Manager Atrocel Industries - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 113 / 2015.                                           Date.     27    .     4  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       Preident.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                                                       Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                              Member.

 

Sri Gopal Debnath, S/O: Sri Adhir(Ajit), Debanath, AT:Housing Board Colony, Tumbiguda, Po/  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                              …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.Sri Sanjeeb Chatopadhya, Branch Manager, Agrocel Industries (S.D), Kasruri Nagar, 5h. lane, Rayagada.

2. M/S. Agrocel Industries Ltd., Corporate office 13/14, Aradhana Industrial, Development Corporation, 2^nd. Floor, Near Vivani Industrial Estate, Goregaon (EAST) Mumbai- 400053.

3.Regd. office, 4^th. Floor, Doctors House, G.K.General Health, Bhuj-Kutch 370 001, Gujarat.                                                                                                                      .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No.1   :- Sri V.S.Raju, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P.No.2 & 3 :- Set Exparte.

.

JUDGMENT

                The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non  issue of   N.O.C. for the final withdrawal of E.P.F. amount a sum of Rs.86,000/-  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

On being noticed the O.P No.1  appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.Ps 2  & 3    neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps 2  & 3.    Observing lapses of around 2 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps 2  & 3    . The action of the O.Ps 2  & 3    are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps 2  & 3    were set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

  Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P No.1  and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute that the complainant was an employee  of the  O.Ps  and was working for the period from  1990 to 2011.

The O.P. No.1 in their written version clearly mentioned and contended  that  any dispute relating to the conditions of services and clearances are not coming with in the  jurisdiction of this forum  and the Industrial Disputes act and other labour courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.

The  O.P.No.1 in  para-2  contended that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section  2(i)(d)(ii)  the C.P. Act, 1986 as the relations between them are of an employee and employer which is not coming within the jurisdiction of this forum.

The  O.P.No.1 in  para-3  contended that the dispute as alleged by the him relating to the non giving of the  N.O.C. to the E.P.F. to the complainant is not coming within the ambit of the explanation 2(i)(d) of the  C.P. Act, 1986.

The  O.P.No.1 in  para-4  contended that  the E.P.F. Act has its forum  for adjudicating the disputes  and for  enforcement of the orders and thus being an independent Statutory authority can adjudicate all such disputes within its purview.  The Disptutes as submitted  by the complainant is not coming with the consumer dispute as alleged in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The  O.P.No.1 in  para-5  contended that  the  complainant has suppressed many relevant facts which are essential for better adjudicating of the issues in the case.  The complainant was appointed as a Centre in charge at Rayagada under the O.P. NO.1 along with one Mihir Dalal, Branch Manager. They are entrusted with the huge amount of  the funds and products  of the company and also for purchase of the Raw cotton. Both of  them have  connived and conspired among them  and had misappropriated huge amount of the company  apeart from generating false and concoted vouchers   and accounts and illegally diverting the funds to the accounts of others. When the company  noticed  the  same the complainan has absconded himself without submitting  the accounts, and handing over the charge of the stocks and books of accounts etc and later after a substantial period of time sent the resignation through E-mail.  In the mean while the company O.P. No.2 has lodged the Case G.R-456/2010 which is sub-judice before the  Court of the  S.D.J.M., Rayagada. It is pertinent to submit that the clearance to the employee by the management  will be assigned only on submitting the accounts and funds entrusted to him have been completely accounted for and settled. The complainant having been absconded since then and avoiding the police arrest even if demands the NOC for the EPF  the same can not be treated  as a deficiency  of service in view of the facts and circumstances of the case..

 The present case in hand the complainant neither  counter  nor filed any documentary evidence  to  substantiate  the allegation  made by the O.Ps against the complainant in their written version. Further the case  is sub-judice before the  S.D.J.M., Court bearing  G.R. case No. 456/2010. When  the case is sub-judice this forum at present can not adjudicate the matter.

This forum feel the complaint to approach Civil court  for redressal of his grievance as  District Consumer  forum  was not proper forum due to comprehensive  evidence of the parties.

Again   this forum observed  the  case involves complicated  question of facts .

            While considering the grievances of the complainant  we rely  the decision. It is held and reported  in CPR  1991  (1) page -2  the Hon’ble  National Commission  where in   observed  “Section 2(i) ©- complaint petition- complicated  issues of fact involving    taking of oral and documentary evidence – cannot   be determined under this act- Civil  suit proper remedy- the procedure for disposal of  complaints   under the act  has been laid down in  the  Section – 13   of act sub-section –II,  III of the section shows  beyond doubt  that the statute does not  contemplated the determination  of complicated issues of  fact involving   taking of elaborate oral evidence and  adducing voluminous  documents  evidence  and detailed  scrutiny and assessment of such evidence. The Hon’ble  Commission   further observed   It is true that  the forums  constituted under the  act are vested with the  power to  examine witness on oath and to  order discovery and production of documents.  But  such power is to be exercised  in case  where the   issues involve are simple, such  as the  defective quality  of any goods  purchased or any short coming  are inadequacy in the   quality  nature of manner of performance  of service  which the respondent  as contracted to perform for consideration.  The  present case  can not be determined without   taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence. 

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

ORDER.

            In resultant the complaint petition stands dismissed.        The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is disposed off.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this            27 th. Day of    April,  2018.

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                                              President