BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.111 of 2022

      Date of Instt. 05.04.2022

      Date of Decision: 22.12.2023

Varun Kochhar aged 33 years son of Sh. S. C. Kochhar resident of House No.19/5, New Ashok Nagar, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd., Erstwhile Worldwide   Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial    Area, Phase-6, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali, Punjab           160055 Through its Chairman cum Managing Director.

2.       WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd., Erstwhile Worldwide   Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial    Area, Phase-6, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali, Punjab           160055 Through its Vice President/Corporate H. R. Ms. Aman         Ghuman.

3.       WWICS Global Law Offices Pvt. Ltd., Erstwhile Worldwide   Immigration Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.21-22,     Ground Floor, Midland Financial Centre, G.T. Road, Opposite     Hotel Kings, Jalandhar Through its Senior Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

          Application for dismissal of the complaint.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for Applicant/OPs.

                   Sh. Bharat Puri, Adv. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                Heard on application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground being not maintainable and this Commission having no jurisdiction.

2.                The OPs have alleged that in the complaint, the complainant has claimed his salary of Rs.62,960/-, monthly incentives, non-payment of EPF and compensation and litigation expenses, but as per the settled law, the matter of services regarding the salary, facility, allowances and perks is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission as the complainant is not consumer as per the Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. There are rules and regulations for determination of such matters which are governed by usual contract between the employee and the employer. He has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi in FA No.10/156, titled as ‘Shri Ved Prakash Juneja Vs. Director CGHS, New Delhi and another and further relied upon a law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in F. A. 638/2016, titled as ‘N. K. Philips Vs. Elegant Car Accessories Pvt.’ and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable.

3.                The reply to the application has been filed by the respondent/complainant denying the averments made in the application. It has been alleged that since the complainant served in the office of OPs at Jalandhar and is also resident of Jalandhar, therefore, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and decide the same. All the employees are consumer and have right to benefits, therefore, the complaint is maintainable. Request has been made to dismiss the application.

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 or not. Section-2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act reads as under:-

                        (d) “Consumer” means any person who,—

                   (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid      or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any        system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid     or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any          system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the       approval of such person, but does not include a person who    obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

                   (ii) ¹² [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly      promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes       any beneficiary of such services other than the person     who ¹² [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or       promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any           system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person ¹³ [but does not      include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

                   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.                In the present complaint, the complainant has claimed monthly salary, monthly and quarterly incentives, special incentives and encashment of earned leaves of 35 days. 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 and perks etc. cannot be claimed in consumer complaint.

6.                So, in view of the law relied upon by the applicant/OPs, the application of the applicant/OPs for dismissal of the complaint is allowed and thus, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as matters of service relating to salaries, facilities, allowances, monthly and quarterly incentives, special incentives, encashment of earned leaves and perks etc. cannot be claimed in consumer complaint and the same is disposed of with the liberty to the complainant to file a case before the Civil Court, if so desired. It is further directed that if the complainant desires to file complaint before the Civil Court, the period so consumed by the complainant in this Commission from the date of filing complaint till disposal is to be taken into account and exempted as per Limitation Law while filing a case before the Civil Court. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna              Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

22.12.2023         Member                          Member           President