CC/106/2024

                 Arun Sharma Vs. The Panjab Agro Unati Grameen Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

Present:       Sh. Kuldip Kumar, Auth. Rep. for the Complainant.

1.                Today, the Member/Jaswant Singh Dhillon is on leave.

2.                This complaint presented before us for consideration on the point of admission of the complaint.

3.                At the time of admission of complaint, we are to see if the complainant is a consumer or not as in the complaint, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs for making payment of Salary Plus T. A. and D. A. The complainant has submitted that he was appointed as Sales Officer with Panjab Agro Unati Grameen Marketing Pvt. Ltd. on 01.11.2021 and on 01.08.2022 the complainant was granted first promotion and his salary was also increased with incentive. He also got one another promotion on 01.08.2023 and again his salary was increased, but the OPs despite passing away sufficient time not released full and final dues.

4.                The point to be considered at this juncture is as to whether the complainant is consumer or not and if not, whether the complaint is maintainable and can be admitted or not.

                   It has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in FA No.10/156, decided on 19.05.2010 titled as ‘Shri Ved Prakash Juneja Vs. Director CGHS, New Delhi and another’ that ‘it can be deemed, as well settled law that matters of service relating to salaries, facilities, allowances and perks etc. are governed by usual contract between the employee and the employer, whether the employer be govt. or a private person. There are rules and regulations for determination of such matters and the employee is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act’. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in F. A. 638/2016, titled as ‘N. K. Philips Vs. Elegant Car Accessories Pvt.’ that ‘the case for recovery of salary cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum’. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission, West Bengal, in F. A. 231/2010, decided on 06.12.2010, titled as ‘Chief Exe. (Works), The Hooghly Vs. Sri Sachin Kundu’ that ‘there is no relationship of consumer between the employer/appellant and the complainant/respondent and consequently there cannot be any deficiency of service by the employer for the purpose of payment of gratuity to the employee by the employer. In that view of the matter we hold that the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in this regard is not maintainable in the Fora constituted under the said Act.’

5.                Thus, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi, matters of service relating to salaries, facilities, allowances, monthly and quarterly incentives, special incentives, encashment of earned leaves etc. whether the employee be govt. or private person, cannot be maintained as consumer complaint in Consumer Commission and the complaint of the complainant is disposed of with the observation that the complainant is not consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the Record Room.          

Dated                                         Jyotsna                   Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

09.04.2024                      Member                          President