State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ganges Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Noor Hosain Of Old Line Quarter No.84 on 16 November, 2009
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. FA/266/2009 DATE OF FILING: 23.7.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 16.11.2009 PETITIONER The Ganges Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Represented by General Manager Bansberia, P.S. Mogra Dist. - Hooghly OPPOSITE PARTIES Noor Hosain of Old Line Quarter No.84 P.O. Bansberia, Dist. - Hooghly BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. A.K. RAY MEMBER : MRS. S. MAJUMDER FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. N.R. Mukherjee, Advocate FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT This appeal was filed against order dated 13.4.09 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly in C.D.F. Case No.124 of 2008 whereby the complaint was allowed and relief was granted to the complainant.
Case made out in the complaint, in brief, is that the complainant was an employee under the OP and on attaining the age of superannuation was to retire from service from 01.4.2005. Accordingly the complainant retired from service and made several representations before OP for disbursement of the amount lying in his account of gratuity. Inspite of lawyers notice and repeated reminders no redress was available and accordingly the complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction upon OP to disburse the amount of gratuity with interest in favour of the complainant along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Heard Mr. N.R. Mukherjee, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant who contended that in respect of claim for gratuity by reason of rendering service, no complain can be made before the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. It is contended that payment of gratuity is a service for no consideration and so the employee is not a consumer. The definition of gratuity as given in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was referred to in support of the contention of the appellant. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee also referred to the judgment in the case of General Manager, Telecom-Vs-M. Krishnan reported in 2009(8) SCC, 481 decided by the Apex Court, Subrata Roy-Vs-Tapan Kr. Bhattacharjee reported in 2000(3) CPJ 75 decided by the West Bengal State Commission and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Vs-Shiv Kumar Joshi reported in 1999(10) Supreme 332 decided by the Honble Supreme Court to show that when there is a special statute providing for a machinery for a particular relief, a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act for same relief is not maintainable. Reference was also made to the case of State of Punjab-Vs-Labour Court, Jullunder reported in 1980(1) SCC 4 holding that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being a self-contained Code and as its provision impliedly exclude recourse to any other statute for payment of gratuity, application for payment of gratuity does not lie under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Mr. A.K. Gupta, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent contended that law in respect of maintainability of the proceeding under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking relief of payment of gratuity has been settled by the Honble National Commission in the case of Venkatesh-Vs-Vishwanath reported in 2006(1) CPR 473.
After considering the above contentions as also the cases referred to by the respective parties it appears that the cases cited on behalf of the appellant though lay down a law against maintainability of a proceeding under a general statute when there is a special statute providing a machinery to grant self-same relief, but in respect of claim for gratuity a judgment considering the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been passed in the case of Venkatesh (Supra) wherein it has been held that a proceeding under Consumer Protection Act for a claim for gratuity is maintainable.
Law is also settled that a finding by the Honble National Commission is binding on State Commissions and the Forums.
Therefore, as the law laid down by the Honble National Commission is binding on this State Commission, following law laid down in the case of Venkatesh-Vs-Vishwanath(Supra) it is held that the proceeding is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act for a claim for gratuity. The only argument advanced by the appellant having thus been rejected and no other contention having been advanced against the impugned judgment, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment is affirmed. No order as to costs.
(S. Majumder) (A.K. Ray) (Justice A. Chakrabarti) MEMBER(L) MEMBER PRESIDENT