Haryana

StateCommission

A/318/2016

PARABOLIC DRUGS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIPIN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SURI

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     318 of 2016

Date of Institution:     05.04.2016  

Date of Decision :      01.09.2016  

1.      M/s Parabolic Drugs Limited through its Managing Director, SCO No.99-100, Top Floor Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

          2^nd Address: Industrial Plot No.45, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

2.      R&D Centre of M/s Parabolic Drugs Limited 280-281, HSIIDC, Alipur Tehsil & District Panchkula through its Senior Vice President (HR) Shri Ranjit Marwaha.

3.      M/s Parabolic Drugs Limited Village Sundhran, P.O. Mubarakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Director.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Vipin Kumar s/o Sh. Om Parkash, Resident of House No.27, Sector 12-A, Panchkula now residing at House No.245, Bhrampuri, Muzaffar Nagar (UP).

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                  

Argued by:          Shri Puneet Tuli, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri R.S. Sathi, Advocate for respondent.                  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This opposite parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated February 24^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2015.

2.                Vipin Kumar-complainant (respondent herein) was appointed as Research Scientist by M/s Parabolic Drugs Limited-Opposite Parties/appellants, vide Appointment Letter dated 8^th July, 2007, (Annexure C-3). His emoluments were fixed at Rs.33,333/- per month including all the allowances. The complainant joined the service on 14^th August, 2007. He was confirmed vide letter dated 8^th March, 2008 (Annexure C-4); promoted as “Sr. Research Scientist” (Grade-M2) vide letter dated 20^th July, 2009 and then was promoted as Manager with effect from 7^th May, 2014 vide letter Annexure C-2. The complainant resigned from the service on 15.12.2014 and the opposite parties issued Relieving cum Experience Certificate (Annexure C-1) dated 23^rd January, 2015. The opposite parties paid the sages upto 30.11.2014

3.                The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties neither paid the wages from 01.12.2014 to 15.12.2014 nor paid the SUDOX FOOD COUPON from June, 2014 till December, 2014 besides medical amount from April, 2014 till 15.12.2014 and Leave Encashment. The complainant also sought gratuity of Rs.1,07,221/- for a period of 7 years 4 months and 2 days. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.                The opposite parties-appellants contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that the complainant was not a consumer of the opposite parties because the claim in respect of the benefits sought has arisen out of an employment contract. The opposite parties are registered under the provisions of BIFR and no proceedings can continue against them without the permission of the board. It was denied that the complainant was not paid the entire wages till the date he was relieved. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint in part and issued direction as under:-

“(i)     To pay the gratuity amount of Rs.1,07,221/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from its due date till its actual realization.

(ii)      To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.”

6.                Undisputedly, the complainant joined the services of the appellants-opposite parties as Research Scientist from 08^th July, 2007 and he was promoted up to the post of Manager. He resigned from the service and was relieved on 15^th December, 2014. Relieving-cum-Experience Certificate (Annexure C-1) was issued to the complainant. Thus, the duration of service of the complainant was 7 years, 4 months and 2 days.

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite parties argued that the complainant was not the consumer of the appellants. The appellants are registered under the provisions of BIFR and no proceedings can continue against the appellants without the permission of the board.

8.                The contention raised is not tenable. Hon’ble National Commission in VENKATESH & ORS. Versus VISHWANATH & ORS., I (2008) CPJ 219 (NC) held as under:-

4.   As far as the first point is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner wishes to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur & Ors., CA No. 8 of 1977, dated 16.10.79. We have very carefully gone through this judgment which relates to the period 1979 whereas Consumer Protection Act, 1979 came into existence from 1987. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law —The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

5.      Admittedly, as per law now laid down by this Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court this is an additional remedy available to the consumer. The fact that the complainant shall fall within the definition of the consumer has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 395, CA No. 411 of 1997 dated 30.1.1996. In the cited judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon its own earlier judgment in the case of Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. Etc. v. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Anr., I (1998) CPJ 1 (SC)=III (1998) SLT 684=(1998) 4 SCC 39, held as follows:

“In the present case, we are concerned with Clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(d). In the said clause a consumer would mean a person who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services. When a young child is taken to a hospital by his parents and the child is treated by the doctor, the parents would come within the definition of consumer having hired the services and the young child would also become a consumer under the inclusive definition being a beneficiary of such services. The definition clause being wide enough to include not only the person who hires the services but also the beneficiary of such services which beneficiary is other than the person who hires the services, the conclusion is irresistible that both the parents of the child as well as the child would be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Act and as such can claim compensation under the Act.”

6.      In the above circumstances we are left in no doubt that the respondent shall be consumer and in view of the Section 3 of the CPA, 1986, the Consumer Fora will have jurisdiction to entertain such a case.”

 

9.                Learned District Forum relying upon the said pronouncement only held the complainant to be consumer to the extent of gratuity and allowed the complaint to that extent. The other reliefs were not allowed.

10.              In view of the factual and legal position enunciated above, no case for interference in the order of the District Forum is made out.  Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

11.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 01.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

CL