BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.61/2008

Between

Complainant : A.Gopa Kumar,

Asst. Field Officer,

Nullathanni Estate,

Munnar - Post.

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Principal,

Highrange School,

Maduppatty P.O.

Munnar.

2. The Manager, (Administration)

M/s Tata Tea Limited,

Munnar.

(Both by Advs: K.M. Sanu,

Mathews K. Uthuppachan,

Binu Mathew & Terry V. James)

3. The Regional Secretary,

Central Board of Secondary

Education,

Plot No.1630 A, 'J' Block,

15th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

West Madras - 600 014.

(By Adv: Joseph Pathalil)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant was an Employee under the Tata Tea Limited Munnar, as an Assistant Field Officer, and was working at Nullathanni Estate. During March 2005, he was transferred his possession over the Estates in KDH Village on a sub-lease to a newly formed company named, Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Limited. Complainant was under treatment for Rheumatic Arthritis and Gout, at the general Hospital of the Tata Tea Limited, after that he was admitted in Medical College Hospital Kottayam. Since there was no improvement, he was under care of Ayurvedic system of medicine. He applied for leave, but not sanctioned by the opposite party and this lead to the absence of work which was taken as unauthorized absence by the management, and subsequently dismissed from service. The subject matter is pending before the Deputy Labour Officer as Industrial Dispute. The management tried to evict the complainant from the quarters forcibly, which was also prevented by the complainant, by an order of injunction from the Honourable Munsiff Court, Devicolam and the said suit is also pending.

The Daughter of the complainant Miss. Greeshma Gopakumar is a student of 1st opposite party's school named High Range School, admitted in 2nd Standard. The school is managed by the 2nd opposite party, which is affiliated to the 3rd opposite party. After the dismissal of the complainant from the 2nd opposite party's estate, there was no hindrance to the education of the complainant's daughter till 18.02.2008. But on 18.02.2008 the complainant was directed by the 1st opposite party to withdraw his child at the close of the academic season. This was replied by the complainant explaining the legal position vide letter dated 26th February 2008. However on 18th April 2008, when the school re-opened, the complainant's daughter joined in higher studies in 3rd class, but she was send out of school on the first day of her class 3 by the 1st opposite party without any Notice or Letter. The complainant sent a letter to the 1st opposite party on the above act on 17th April 2008. But they even refused to consider the pleas of the complainant during discussions on 17th April 2008. The school is a public school, followed to the Central Board of Secondary Education and as per the terms of affiliation, the education authorities in the state have control and the rules also applicable. The complainant is remitting the fees regularly, while in service by recovery from wages and thereafter directly. The action of the respondents 1 and 2 are totally unjustified, the daughter of the complainant faced much hardship and the studies of his child also at stake, hence tantamount to deficiency in service, the petition is filed for getting direction to admit the child in the school of the 2nd opposite party.

2. As per the written version of 1st and 2nd opposite parties the complainant is not a 'consumer' as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. The entire issue are of a contract between the parties which has been comprised. "The High Range School" was started in the year 1985 essentially to provide education to children of employees of TATA Tea Limited. It is an un-aided school which is owned and controlled by the TATA Tea Limited. The school by itself, is even today unable to cater the needs of around 13,500 employees of Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Private Limited (Earlier TATA Tea Limited) and around 1,500 employees of TATA Tea Limited. The Plantations of TATA Tea Limited was in the year 2005 transferred to another company called Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company Private Limited (here in after referred to as KDHP Company). The admission to the school is strictly on the basis of a selection process. Admissions to LKG is made by selection constituting reputed people in the field of education and only those selected, based on the seats available are admitted. Others are considered, based on the vacancies that arose. At all times it is absolutely essential that, children studying in the High Range School must necessarily have their parents in Employment in Tata Tea Limited/ KDHP company and it was felt necessary in the interest of all concerned that, in the event of any parent leaving the company's service for whatever reason, his/her child/children shall be immediately withdrawn from the school. However, provision is also made in appropriate cases to enable the child to complete the academic year in question. Clause 'd' of the prospectus under the head "Admission" reads as "Admission to the school is restricted to children of permanent management staff and other employee of TATA Tea Limited and Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company private Limited in High Range, Kerala". "Grant of admission to the condition that in the event of the parent leaving the company's service for whatever reason, his/her/child/children shall immediately be withdrawn from the school. On specific request, consideration shall be given to permit the child/children to continue in the school until the end of that particular academic year, on such terms and conditions as may be stipulated by the school in this connection".

The complainant was employed as an Assistant Field Officer in Nullathanni Estate apparently in the year 2006. He had complaint of severe back ache problem which prevented him from discharge his duties as an Assistant Field Officer in the Tea field and requested for a change in assignment of work. This was apparently not acceeded to. He is therefore understood to have stopped going for work. It is also reliably understood that he abandoned his work and proceeded abroad. At that point of time he also even sublet his company accommodation to some Engineering students in the Munnar Engineering college run by the government. On account of continuous unauthorized absent, disciplinary action was initiated against him and he has been dismissed from service. The complainant's service stood terminated by Kannan Devan Hills company with the effect from 31.07.2007. His daughter Greeshma Gopakumar was allowed to sit in the academic year 2007-2008 after which, the parents were asked to make alternate arrangement for the continued education of the child since the school authorities were borned to cater to the needs of other employees, whose children were already wait listed. In such a situation the principal cannot allow to continue his daughter to study there, since he is no longer an employee of KDH company. No industrial dispute is pending with the respect to the dismissal of the complainant. Field Officer will not come under the category of "workman" under the Industrial Dispute Act and there is no question of arising an Industrial Dispute. So there is no deficiency in service of the 1st and 2nd opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R10 (series) marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5. The POINT:- The complainant was an Assistant Field Officer in Nullathanni Estate owned by TATA Tea Limited. He was dismissed from service on 30.07.2007. His daughter is a student of the school in which OP1 and OP2 are the Principal and Manager respectively. When the school re-opened in April 2008, daughter of the complainant as usual went to the school, but by the evening she was send out of the school and directed her not to come to the school thereafter. This was only because, the complainant was dismissed from service of the 2nd opposite party's estate. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 was while working under 2nd opposite party, he has undergone treatment for Rheumatic Arthritis and Gout under the medical department of TATA Tea Limited. PW1 was referred to Kottayam Medical College, seeing there was no relief, the Allopathic system of medicines does not yield any results, he started treatment under Ayurvedic medicine. The management did not approve the same system of treatment and the absence of duty was considered as unauthorized absence. The request for change of work by the PW1 through his union was not considered by them. So PW1 registered an industrial dispute at Deputy Labour Officer, Munnar as ID No.349/06 and it is pending. Ext.P9 is the copy of Certificate issued from Deputy Labour Officer Munnar stating the same. PW1 was dismissed from service of the 2nd opposite party. Wife of the PW1 was called to the Office of the 1st opposite party and directed to avail T.C for her child from the school on 16th August 2007. PW1 replied to the Principal, High Range school against the oral direction, by a letter dated 17th August 2007 explaining the facts. Ext.P1 is the copy of the same. After that a letter was received from the first opposite party stating that the child cannot be permitted to continue in the school and directed to withdraw from 31st March 2008, because the complainant has dismissed from service. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P2. That was replied by PW1 on 26th February 2008, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P3(a). A copy was forwarded to the 3rd opposite party. The school was re-opened on 16th April 2008. The daughter of the PW1 also went to the school for the academic year 2008-2009, but by 3 PM the student was send out from there and directed her, not to come to the school thereafter. The Van driver was also instructed, not to take her to the school on the very next day onwards. PW1 personally met the 1st opposite party at the school on 17th April 2008 and requested to continue the studies of her child. Registered letter was also given to the Principal, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P4. Complainant was paying the school fee regularly to the opposite party. Ext.P5 (series) is the copy of the same. So PW1 filed a petition before this Forum seeking an interim relief for admission to the child and it was allowed, vide order dated 30th May 2008. So the opposite party admitted in the school by collecting a special fee of Rs.1,554/- per month in the place of Rs.402/- on 2nd June 2008. Under protest PW1 remitted the same and admitted the child so as to save further school days. Letter stating the same is marked as Ext.P8. The wife of the complainant was examined as PW2. PW2 deposed that the child was admitted in the school after conducting the written test and the oral test by the opposite party, in LKG. It was not because of the employment of her husband. The child was admitted in the school only because of the merit of the test conducted by the opposite parties. PW1 was an employee of the 2nd opposite party at that time. The child was continuing her studies in the school after the dismissal of her husband. The monthly fee at that time was Rs.405/-. After the dismissal of the service of PW1, the fee was paid through Demand Draft by PW2 in the name of the Principal. Copy of the DD paid by the PW2 is marked as Ext.P10. PW2 never made any fees due to the child. The PW1 replied to the opposite parties direction for receiving T.C of the child, but no communication was given from the opposite party after that. There is no income for the husband of PW2. PW2 is receiving a salary of Rs.1,300/- only. The child was readmitted in the school as per the order of this Forum. Now PW2 is remitting Rs.1,554/- per month as fee for the child. Ext.P1 is the fees receipt. Children other than the employees of the TATA Tea are also studying in the school. Children of KSEB employees and VRS persons from TATA Tea are studying in the school. 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1. As per DW1, the High Range School was set up in Munnar, in Idukki District in the year 1985 essentially to provide education to children of employees of Tata Tea Limited and also KDHP Limited. The school is owned and controlled by Tata Tea Limited. The school by itself is even today unable to cater to the needs of around 13,500 employees of KDHP Company (earlier Tata Tea Limited) and around 1,500 employees of Tata Tea Limited. Admissions to LKG is made by selection constituting reputed people. It is absolutely essential that, children studying in the High Range School must necessarily have their parents in employment in Tata Tea Limited/KDHP Company. In the event of parent leaving, the company's service for whatever reason, their child/children shall be immediately withdrawn from the school. It is written in the prospectus itself. The old prospectus is marked as Ext.R5 and the new prospectus is marked as Ext.R4(series). The fees are collected according to the designation of the employee. The education in the school is being imparted at high concession to the children of the employee of M/s Tata Tea Limited and Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company Private Limited. The school also provides free education to the children of entitled employees. The complainant was an employee of Tata Tea and was subsequently employed by KDHP Company in 2005. Complainant was employed as an Assistant Field Officer in Nullathanni estate apparently in the year 2006, He had complaint of severe back ache problem which prevented him from discharging his duties as an Assistant Field Officer in the Tea fields. So he requested for a change in assignment of work. This was not acceded to. He is therefore understood to have stop going for work. It is also reliably understood that he abandoned his work and proceeded abroad. At that time he even sublet his company accommodation to some Engineering students in Munnar government Engineering College. On account of continuous unauthorized absence, disciplinary action was initiated against him and he was dismissed from service. No dispute has erased with respect to the dismissal. It is true that KDHP Company has thereafter proceeded against him for vacating his quarters and for taking possession there off. The complainant also moved for injunction against forceful eviction, which is pending. The complainant's service stood terminated with effect from 31.07.2007. As per the specific provisions of "Clause D" under "admission" in the prospectus a forsaid, his daughter Greeshma Gopakumar has allowed to complete the Academic year 2007-2008, after which the parent was asked to make alternate arrangement for the continued education of the child. The Principal cannot allow to continue his daughter since he is no longer an employee of KDHP company. In this circumstances, Greeshma Gopakumar was not admitted to the school for the academic year 2007-2009. No industrial dispute is pending with respect of dismissal. The company also informed that the complainant being an Assistant Field Officer is not falling within the category of workman under the Industrial Dispute Act. The 1st opposite party is liable to obey employment rules and regulations in the prospectus as he is the staff of 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner. The school does not provide education to the children of the public at large as alleged. Except in exception cases were the management has its right to do. The education of the child was at a highly concessional rate because the complainant was an employee of Tata Tea Limited. The child was allowed to complete in the academic year 2007-2008 even after the termination of her father's job. Sufficient time was also available to the complainant to make alternate arrangements for the continued education of his child in any other school in Munnar. Ext.R6 is the CBSE affiliation of the school. Copy of the bye-laws of the affiliation is marked as Ext.R8. The fees structure and bus fee in the academic year 2008-2009 of Mont Fort School is marked as Ext.R9(series). The same of Carmalagiri Public School is marked as Ext.R10(series).

6. The only dispute is whether the child of the complainant is entitled to continue the study in High Range School owned by the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party with fee relaxation?.

7. The complainant was under treatment for Rheumatic Arthritis and Gout at Tata's Hospital, then referred to Kottayam Medical College. Since the Alopathec Medicine does not yield any result, he tried Ayurvedic system of medicines. The manager did not approve the same system of medicine. So the absence of duty was considered as unauthorized absences. The change of work requested by the complainant through Union was not considered. So an Industrial Dispute was filed as ID No.391/06 before the Deputy Labour Officer Munnar. During pendancy of that, the service of the complainant was dismissed by the 2nd opposite party. Ext.P9 is the copy of Certificate issued from the Deputy Labour Officer Munnar stating that the matter is pending as ID No.349/06.

8. As per the opposite party, the Industrial Dispute Act cannot be made applicable to Tata Tea Limited, or the High Range School in matters pertaining to employment of the Greeshma Gopakumar because the complainant being an Assistant Field Officer is not falling within the category of "workman" under the Industrial Dispute Act. The child was admitted in the school only because, she was the daughter of the employee of Tata Tea. But PW2 deposed that it is a public school, children of non-employees of the Tata Tea were also admitted in the school. The child was admitted in the school after conducting oral and written test and according to the merit of the test, the admission was given. The elder child of PW2 was not admitted in the school when considered the merit, in the year 2002. The daughter of the complainant who was studying in the school was directed to receive T.C compulsorily by the 1st opposite party. The complainant constrained to file this petition before this Forum for an interim relief and as per the order of the Forum, the child was re-admitted in the school after cancelling the fee concession, Ext.P7 shows the same.

9. But we think that even though the complainant was dismissed from service, the matter is pending before a legal authority. It is not disposed by the authority. So it is not proper to dismiss his child from the school because of that. The fee concessions given to the child shall not be cancelled before termination of Industrial Dispute. The child studying in 3rd standard is not responsible for the act of her father or for the act of 2nd opposite party against her father. She should not be suffered for that. Dismissing the child from the school, or directing the child to receive compulsory Transfer Certificates without any act of the child, will always affect the study of the child. Order from Consumer Forum re-admitted the student. These things have affected mental agony to the child as well as the parents. The child is paying fee to the opposite party for her studies. The Principal of the school should not stand in the way of the good education of the student. These actions will always effects mentally because she is studying only in 3rd standard. So the act of the opposite party is a gross deficiency in their service and they have to pay Rs.1,000/- for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the child.

Hence the petition allowed. The OP1 and OP2 are restrained from issuing compulsory Transfer Certificate to the complainant's daughter "Greeshma Gopakumar" from the "High Range School", for the reason that the complainant is dismissed from service from Nullathanni Estate. The fee concessions given to the student when her father was an employee of Nullathanni estate should be continued until the disposal of Industries Dispute as 349/06 before the Deputy Labour Officer, Munnar as per Ext.P9. The 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and sufferings and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - A Gopakumar

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Pratap Ramdas

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Copy of Letter dated 17.08.2007

Ext.P2 - Copy of Letter dated 18.02.2008 from the 1st opposite party.

Ext.P3(a) - Copy of reply Letter dated 26.02.2008

Ext.P3(b) - Copy of complaint dated 26.02.2008.

Ext.P4 - Copy of registered Letter dated 17.04.2008

Ext.P5(a) - Copy of Cash receipt dated 28.01.08

Ext.P5(b) - Copy of Cash receipt dated 04.03.08

Ext.P6 - Copy of Letter dated 08.05.2008

Ext.P7 - Copy of cash receipt for Rs.3108/-, dated 02.06.2008.

Ext.P8 - Copy of Letter dated 02.06.2008

Ext.P9 - Copy of Certificate issued by Deputy Labour Officer Munnar dated 24.05.2007.

Ext.P10 - Copy of DD of Rs.405/- dated 24.11.2007.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Copy of Letter dated 17.08.2007 to the complainant.

Ext.R2 - Office copy of Letter dated 08.05.2008

Ext.R2(a) - Copy of Postal Acknowledgement Card

Ext.R3 - Copy of original application for Admission.

Ext.R4(series) - New Prospectus and Application Form of High Range School

Ext.R5(series) - Old Prospectus and Application Form of High Range School

Ext.R6 - CBSE Affiliation Annexure dated 13.09.2002

Ext.R7 - Copy of application for Affiliation extension

Ext.R8(series) - Copy of CBSE Affiliation bye-laws.

Ext.R9 - Copy of Fee Structure and Bus Fee of Montfort School during 2008-2009.

Ext.R10 - Copy of School Fee details and Busfair of Carmelagiri Public School