JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant Prafulchandra against Opposites 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to take cognizance of not depositing the amount deducted from the salary and with regard to other benefits.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he employed in the college of opposite No-3 in the year 1992, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Lab Assistant, at the time of his service opposites have deducted LIC premiums under salary saving scheme and PF premiums. But they never credited the said amount to the LIC or PF officer, he requested the opposites to furnish certain records regarding his service matter, but opposites failed to produce those records. Now they are denying the deductions of LIC and PF premiums. Hence this complaint is filed against all the opposites for the reliefs as prayed in it. <br /> <br /> 3. Opposite No-1 to 3 appeared in this case through their Advocate opposite No-3 filed written version, opposite No- 1 & 2 adopted the same written version.<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the written version of them are that, the complainant was appointed as trainee temporarly which not requires any qualifications during the training period, he remained absent, he was not obeyed in the orders of the superior in the laboratory. He never worked as lab assistant, no premiums in respect of LIC or PF deducted from the salary. After the order of the Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge Raichur in Case No. EAT No. 2/05, he never attended to his duties, he made false allegations, no deficiency in services on their part, accordingly they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.<br /> <br /> 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he worked as Lab Assistant in the college of opposite No-3 and while in his service, opposites not paid salary upto date from dismissal of his service, benefits, invigilation remuneration, LIC premiums and PF premiums not credited even though amount was deducted in his salary, thereafter, he orally and in wrting opposites by requesting to make payment of the deducted amount but all of them are shown their negligence and thereby all opposites are found guilty under deficiency in their service? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (2) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 & 2:-<br /> <br /> 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the Principal of opposite No-3 College was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Document Ex.R-1 is marked. <br /> <br /> 8. On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint, affidavit-evidence and documentary evidences produced by the complainant and defence taken by the opposites, affidavit-evidence of RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 goes to show that;<br /> <br /> The specific case of complainant that, he worked as Lab Assistant in the college of opposite No-3, his salary not paid upto the date of the dismissal, invigilation remuneration not paid. LIC and PF premiums deducted but not credited or not returned.<br /> <br /> <br /> 9. On the other hand, opposites are contending that, initially complainant was appointed as trainee, but he never promoted as a Lab Assistant at any time. He never returned to his duty after the order of the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Raichur. Invigilation work not enterested to him and thereby question of payment of remuneration for him does not arise, they never deducted LIC and PF premiums as alleged. He not joined to his duty from 13-09-03. on wards. <br /> <br /> 10. Keeping in view of the prayer made by the complainant in the prayer column of this complaint, pleadings evidence, and documents, It is necessary for us to refer section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act. The definition of service as noted in the above said section is having three parts, first part is a main part, second part is an inclusory part, and third part is exclusory part. In the exclusory part of the said section, contract of personal service is excluded from the service as defined U/sec. 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act.<br /> <br /> 11. In the light of the definition of section 2(1)(o), we have gone through in detail the ruling Indian Medical Association V/s. P. Shanta and Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 550 (NC). In the said ruling their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly de-marketed in between contract for service and contract of personal service.<br /> <br /> 12. The Hon’ble National Commission in its decided case Maharastra State Electricity Board V/s. Madhukar Vitttal Kaney and Others reported in 2009(IV) 253 (NC) and in another case Kedarnath Mishra V/s. UOI reported in 1994 (III) CPJ 119 (NC) differentiated the contract for service and contract of personal service.<br /> <br /> 13. Keeping in view of the principles of their lordships we have appreciated the case of the complainant. The prayer column of the complainant, is some what peculiar wherein he requested us to take cognizance of the opposites deficiency and default committed by them by not depositing the amount from the salary and such other service benefits. In the circumstances of this case. It is a fact that, the body of the complaint deals with in respect of his service matters, in the circumstances stated above, we are of the view that, the present dispute in between the complainant and opposites are in respect of the service dispute, as such the service said to have rendered by these opposites to the complainant is contract of personal service, which attracts exclusory part of section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, accordingly we have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as pleaded by the complainant in this case and thereby we hold that complainant not proved any deficiency on the part of these opposites, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative.<br /> <br /> 14. In view of our findings on Point No- 1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief’s as prayed in his complaint, as such we answered Point No- 1 & 2 in negative.<br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 15. In view of our finding on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint filed by the complainant against opposites is dismissed. <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-01-10)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />