SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

1. The instant Revision Petition has been filed by the revisionists/opposites parties challenging the order impugned dated 06/12/2022 passed by the Ld DCDRC, Nadia in connection with the MA case being no – MA/04/2022 (arising out of Consumer Case being no – CC/74/2021) wherein the Ld Trial Commission concerned has been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid MA case on contest but without any order as to costs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order the present revisionists/opposite parties have filed this instant RP before this Commission praying for setting aside the order impugned dated 06/12/2022 passed in aforesaid MA case.
2. The fact remains that the complainant/employee has not yet received the amounts from his employer towards incentive, travelling expenses, dearness allowance and gratuity relating to his service. The complainant/employee has knocked at the door of the Ld Trial Commission concerned for getting proper relief/reliefs as prayed for against the ops/employer.
3. During pendency of the aforesaid Consumer Case, one MA case being no – MA/04/2022 has been filed by the revisionists/opposite parties and they have argued that the instant consumer case is not maintainable at all. Accordingly they have prayed for dismissal of the instant consumer case.
4. Having heard the ld advocate appearing for both sides and upon careful perusal of the materials available on the record, the Ld. Trial Commission has been pleased to reject the aforesaid MA case without any order as to costs.
5. Hence Revision Petition filed by the revisionists/opposite parties before this Commission.
6. We have heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for both sides at length and in full.
7. We have considered the submissions of both sides.
8. We have also meticulously perused all materials available on the record.
9.  At this juncture we think that the moot question/issue raised in the instant Revision Petition as to whether the amounts towards incentive, travelling expenses, dearness allowance and gratuity come well within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 or not that should be decided by this Commission in order to adjudicate the matter for the sake of both parties.
10. What is incentive – As per Income Tax Act incentive paid to the employees are fully taxable and form a part of taxable salary.
11. What is travelling expenses – Travelling expenses includes the entire cost of conveyance, business trips and other incidental charges relating to the various conveyance expenses to be paid by the employer to the employee during the period of business or office trips.
12. What is dearness allowance – As per income tax Act dearness allowance is a part of the salary structure in the payroll system of India. The DA is an allowance given to employees by the Government or Private Sector employers to compensate for the rising cost of living due to inflation. The allowance is to be calculated as a percentage of the employee’s basic salary and is usually adjusted twice a year depending on the inflation rate.
13. What is gratuity – As per income tax Act gratuity is a monetary and terminal benefit given by the employer for his/her rendering service for equal to or more than 5 year. This benefit is payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. It is also a financial component offered by an employer to an employee at the time of completion of his/her service. Gratuity is paid to an employee as part of his/her salary and is considered to be a benefit plan which is designed to help the employee during his/her retirement.  
14. From the above discussion it is crystal clear to us that the aforesaid issue/question is certainly related to the service matter and it is the settled principle of law that the issue/question relating to the relationship of employer and employee does not come well within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as well as Act 2019. In this regard we can safely rely upon the decision taken in Revision Petition being no – 71/2013 in Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy vs State Bank of Hyderabad & Anr. wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC has been pleased to hold that in so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the time-honoured remedial measure adopted by Government or public sector employees having any grievance in regard to a service matter has been to seek redressal of such service matters before the competent services tribunal or civil court. In the present case, the complainant’s grievance is relating to the withholding of the provident fund (bank contribution) and the gratuity. The Hon’ble Commission has also decided that as far as gratuity is concerned, it is undisputedly a service matter and as such it is not within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  
15. Apart from gratuity the other benefits such as incentive, travelling expenses, dearness allowance etc are clearly related to the service matter as the aforesaid benefits are, generally, provided by the employer of the company/concerned organisation and through rendering service to the employer, the aforesaid benefits are received by the employee of the said company/concerned organisation. In the instant case the relationship of employer and employee is obviously persisted and upon the said views the employer-employee relationship has a clear bar to enter into the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 or the Act 2019.
16. Be it mentioned here that the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme comes well within the purview of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and an employee-member of the said scheme is to be treated as ‘consumer’ as per the aforesaid Act which has already been decided by the Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Shiv Kumar Joshi reported in (2000) 1 SCC 98 and in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors vs Director Health Services Haryana & Ors reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136. But the instant case is not related with the dispute regarding provident fund and as such it would be better at the behest of the complainant to approach before the proper and appropriate Forum for getting his relief/reliefs as prayed for against the opposite parties.
17. In pursuant to the above discussions in detail there is no hesitation to hold that the instant RP has enough merit and justification in order to reach proper conclusion of the aforesaid matter.
18. Considering all aspects from all angles and keeping in mind the present provisions of law and regard being had to the aforesaid citations of Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission we are constrained to allow the instant Revision Petition against the respondent/complainant without any order as to costs and set aside the order impugned dated 06/12/2022 passed in MA being no – MA/04/2022 (arising out of CC case being no – CC/74/2021).    
19. The instant Revision Petition stands disposed of.
20. Note accordingly.
21. The Ld. District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint case being No. CC/74/2021 pursuant to the above observations and ultimate conclusion.
22. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Trial Commission for compliance and for necessary action.