DATE OF FILING : 8.6.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.126/2011
Between
Complainant : Sarath Chandran. C,
Chandrabhavan,
Olamattom P.O.,
Thodupuzha, Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Principal,
College of Applied Science,
Olamattom P.O.,
Thodupuzha, Idukki District.
2. The Director,
Institute of Human Resources
Development,
Vazhuthacaud P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant joined in the opposite party college as lecturer in Electronics Engineering on 15.6.2010 on contract basis with wages Rs.455 per day. At the time of joining, the opposite party requested a caution deposit of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant which is the first month's salary of the complainant. It is also informed to the complainant that, at the time of relieving, only after receiving a 'no liability' certificate from the lab, library and office of the opposite party, the same caution deposit will be returned to the complainant. So the complainant was also directed to give a notice before one month for relieving from the service. In 2010 December, the complainant attended an interview at Mangalam Engineering College, Ettumanoor and the matter was informed to the 1st opposite party that he will get the job there and he should be resigned from the service, before one month. After that the complainant passed the interview and approached the opposite party for getting the experience-cum-conduct certificate and that was received. It is also informed by the opposite party that a written application was needed and it was given to the
(cont....2)
- 2 -
opposite party. But the caution deposit was detained by the opposite party eventhough the complainant has given notice to the opposite party before one month, which is illegal. So this petition is filed for getting back the caution deposit with interest and also for compensation.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant was appointed as lecturer in Electronics Engineering and he has receiving a salary of Rs.455 per day and it is for 22 days in a month. There is a circular issued from the Institute of Human Resources Development, Thiruvananthapuram regarding the appointment of the Guest Lecturers in the college. The complainant was working there at the opposite party college from 15.6.2010 to 12.1.2011 and the caution deposit of one month salary was received from the complainant and it was as per the circular issued from the IHRD, “while engaging the guest faculties, an undertaking (agreement) will be obtained from all guest faculties at the time of joining duty declaring that they would give one month notice before their resignation. Otherwise they are bound to give one month's salary except in the case of getting appointment through PSC/UPSC or other Semi Government organizations”. The complainant never made application before one month. So the deposit was not returned.
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 oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.P1 marked on the side of the complainant.
5. The POINT :- The complainant appeared and produced evidence as PW1. PW1 joined in the college on 15.6.2010 and working there as guest lecturer with a salary of Rs.10,000/-. The first month salary of the PW1 was deposited as caution deposit and after resigning from the college, the opposite party issued a certificate regarding the experience and conduct, stating his character and conduct are good and copy of the same is marked as Ext.P1. PW1 is not having any dues at the college or any liability at the library and lab etc. So that the certificate was issued by the opposite party. PW1 has given one month prior notice to the college for resigning from service because he has received a job at Managalam Engineering College, Ettumanoor and that matter was informed to the opposite party before one month. The opposite party deliberately detained the caution deposit of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is a direction from the IHRD regarding the prior notice for resignation from the service and oral notice has been given by the complainant at the time of interview itself and it was given in December.
(cont.....3)
- 3 -
After that the opposite party directed the complainant to give a written document stating that he is resigning from the service after one month and so it was also given. In the circular issued by the IHRD itself, it is not specifically mentioned such a written statement is needed for the same.
The opposite party produced the copies of the circular of the Institute of Human Resources Development, Thiruvananthapuram and appointment proceedings of the complainant and other lecturers in this college. The opposite party also produced the copy of the letter issued by the complainant on 4.1.2011 and it is written that “kindly permit me to retire from this college on 4.2.2011. I will be obliged if you make necessary arrangements for the same”. Another copy of the letter given by the complainant at the time of relieving from the college, stating that, “kindly permit me to retire from this college on 12.1.2011. I will be obliged if you make necessary arrangements for the same. Kindly give the experience certificate too”, the date of that letter is 12.1.2011. But the circular from the IHRD, Thiruvananthapuram, produced by the opposite party shows that “while engaging the guest faculties, an undertaking (agreement) will be obtained from all guest faculties at the time of joining duty declaring that they would give one month notice before their resignation. Otherwise they are bound to give one month's salary except in the case of getting appointment through PSC/UPSC or other Semi Government organizations”. In this case, the complainant obtained job in Mangalam Engineering College, which is a private institution and never received a job from PSC. So as per the circular, it is clearly mentions that he should give one month notice before his resignation. Then only he is eligible for getting back the caution deposit. Here, the copy of the letter dated 12.1.2011 given by the complainant shows that eventhough he had given a letter on 4.1.2011requesting for resignation, he resigned from the service on 12.1.2011 by a letter dated 12.1.2011. So he had given a notice only before 8 days of the resignation. So he is not at all eligible for getting back the caution deposit as per the circular of IHRD / Government. So there is no deficiency proved against the opposite parties.
Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of October, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
(cont...3)
- 3 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :-
On the part of the Complainant :-
PW1 - Sarath Chandran. C.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :-
Nil.
Exhibits :-
On the part of the Complainant :-
Ext.P1 - Copy of the experience certificate issued by the opposite party.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :-
Nil.
