Vipul Med Corp TPA Pvt. Ltd. & Others - Opp.Party(s)
Anuran Samanta
05 May 2014
ORDER
cause list8B,Nelie Sengupta Sarani,7th Floor,Kolkata-700087.
CC NO. 19 Of 2014
1. Dr. Annu BaijalFlat-8-C, Block-B, Embassy Co-operative Housing Society, 4, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 071.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. Vipul Med Corp TPA Pvt. Ltd. & Others515, Udyog Bihar, Phse-V, Gurgaon-122 016. Also Branch at- 19, R. N. Mukherjee Road, Main Building, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700 001.2. 2) MR. RANJAN SUBRAMANIAM515, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-V,GURGAON-122016.3. 3) S.K. MUTNEJA515, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-V, GURGAON-122016.4. 4? DR. ARUP BANERJEE19, R.N MUKHERJEE ROAD, MAIN BUILDING , KOLKATA-700001.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Muhopadhyay ,PRESIDENTHON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda ,MEMBERHON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul ,MEMBER
PRESENT :
Anuran Samanta, Advocate for Complainant
Rep. of the Op., Advocate for Opp.Party
Dated : 05 May 2014
JUDGEMENT
Order No.
05-05-2014 : Today is fixed for delivery of judgement.
Fact remains in this case complainant as an Ex-employee of the OP filed this complaint praying for repayment of outstanding terminal benefit including interest no objection certificate, arrear salary and other dues from complainant’s employer, the OP and fact remains OP by filing written version has challenged the maintainability of this case by filing a petition on the ground that the present complaint should be dismissed as same is not maintainable on the ground this complainant is not a consumer and the present Forum has no legal authority as per provision of the C.P. Act to settle the employer-employee dispute treating employee as a consumer. No doubt Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that the present complainant as an ex-employee and as per provision of C.P. Act, is entitled to get the outstanding dues from the OP the employer. Complainant has filed this complaint on the ground of deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP when complainant rendered service against salary but the dues had not been paid.
On the other hand, Ld. Lawyer for the OP had submitted that in view of the ruling reported in 1994 (3) CPJ 63 National Commission already held that Consumer Forum is not correct Forum for settling employer-employee dispute as employee is not a consumer. At the same time already Hon’ble Supreme Court had decided in Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2013 [arising out of SLP(c) No.11381 of 2012] that under any circumstances, Government employees cannot be a consumer under the employer because service condition of the Government,payment of gratuity and GPF or any of its retiral benefit are guided by the Government Rules and Government Servant does not fall under the C.P. Act and if there is grievance of any employee the employee may appear before State Administrative Tribunal or under Civil Court but not before the Forum under the Act. Adopting the same theorization and principle as laid down in the two judgements including present facts and circumstances it is clear that it is a dispute between the employer and ex-employee. Truth is that OP as employer has not disbursed the complainant’s all outstanding dues including no objection certificate and when OP is a Pvt. Ltd. Company invariably the complainant may get such relief by filing case before Civil Court or before Industrial Tribunal but anyhow considering the present materials on record and relief as prayed for by the complainant it is clear that the complainant does not come under the purview the definition consumer and the present employer cannot be treated as service provider.
In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that complainant as an ex-employee of the OP is not a consumer under the OP and the present dispute is nothing but a service benefit dispute or outstanding of the complainant in between the employer and the employee. So, the complainant is not a consumer and for that purpose we have relied upon the ruling reported in 1994(3) CPJ 63 also. In the result, the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law in view of the fact the provision of the C.P. Act cannot be invoked in view of the fact complainant is not a consumer under the OP.
Accordingly complaint fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost against the OP as complainant is found not a consumer under the OP and it is not a consumer dispute but it is a dispute in between the employer and ex-employee regarding his service benefits.
[HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda] MEMBER[HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Muhopadhyay] PRESIDENT[HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul] MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
