Eswaran Kandasamy. filed a consumer case on 06 Apr 2023 against Unit Head,Jindal Stainless Limited. in the Jajapur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/54/2020 and the judgment uploaded on 11 Apr 2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR : (ODISHA)..
Consumer Complaint No. 54 / 2020.
Date of filing of complaint :- 06.07.2020,
Date of Hearing :- 24.02.2023
Date of Order :- 06.04.2023.
Dated the 6th day of April 2023.
E.swaran Kandasamy
1/403, North street, Pallapatti, Thiruthangal,
Sivakasi, Dist: Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu-626130
AT PRESENT- Dhabalgiri, OMC Opposite,
Jajpur Road, Dist: jajpur-755019
. . . . Complainant.
Versus.
Jindal Stainless Ltd, Delhi Jindal Centre,
12 BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi-110066 …......Opp.Parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Mrs. Susmita Mishra, President,
Counsels appeared for the parties.
For the Complainant: - Paresh Kumar Dhal
For the O.P’s :- Sri Jitendra Kumar Pratihari
Advocate & Associates.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER (I/C).
This C.C. Case No. 54 of 2020 is taken up today for order. The Complainant has filed this case against the O.P’s for service loss and recovery of money on permanent pay scale role.
Heard, the learned Counsels from both the parties, pursued the documents available on record and so also gone through the written version filed by the O.P’s.
The brief fact of this case is that, the complainant was working as a technicians (Asst. Engineer) under the O.Ps and was an employee under the employer O.P’s. The terms & conditions service agreement executed between the complainant and O.P’s and the Complainant worked there from dt: 18.08.2011 to 07.02.2020 as per written version of the O.P’s. The grievance of the complainant is that he worked a lot and for which the employer was benefited out of the same but the complainant alleged that, he has not been promoted nor his salary has been increased even after doing hard work for the employer company. On the contrary the O.P’s have submitted in their written version that the present C.C Case is not acceptable as per C.P Act.
We have gone through the case record and we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a “Consumer” within the purview of C.P Act-2019 (Act-1986) and as such is not maintainable. A dispute between an employee and employer relating to terms and condition of service, salaries etc will not amount to a “Consumer Dispute” vide 2001(I) C.P.J, 16 (NCDRC), similarly in another case decided by U.P State C.D.R Commission vide 2000(I) C.P.J, 409 wherein it was held that, the employee is not a Consumer of the employer and the complaint petition entertaining by the District Forum was not within the Jurisdiction of the District Forum and the remedy lies somewhere else and the employer may approach appropriate authority for redessal of his grievance, and in view of the decision cited above, from the above observation it is our considered view that the complaint petitions is devoid of any merit and as such liable to be dismissed. The complainant may approach appropriate forum for rederessal of his grievance.
O R D E R.
Taking into the all facts and circumstances involved in this case, the complaint petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. But no order as to cost. The C.C Case No: 54/2020 is accordingly disposed off.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for Concerned.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 6th of April 2023
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.