Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs. District Consumer Protection Forum, Sonebhadra and Another

Rajesh Kumar and Others vs District Consumer Protection Forum, Sonebhadra and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 19, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484881

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/484881
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and; S.L. Saraf, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 19, 1998
Case Number: C.M.W.P No. 31219 of 1997
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - consumer - Sections 2(c), 2(e), 2(o) and 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - respondent working in project of petitioner - due paid to respondent after completion of project - respondent approached the District Consumer Forum to pay gratuity and arrears of salary - held, District Consumer Forum has no juri...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 11

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh Kumar and Others

Advocate A.N. Mulla and ;Janardan Sahai, Advs.

Respondent

District Consumer Protection Forum, Sonebhadra and Another

Advocate S.C. and ;U.K. Uniyal, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 11
Reported In: 1998(4)AWC303

Excerpt

civil - consumer - sections 2(c), 2(e), 2(o) and 11 of consumer protection act, 1986 - respondent working in project of petitioner - due paid to respondent after completion of project - respondent approached the district consumer forum to pay gratuity and arrears of salary - held, district consumer forum has no jurisdiction in service matters. - m. katju and s.l. saraf, jj.1. heard sri janardan sahai and shri a. n. mulla learned counsel for the petitioner and sri u. k. uniyal appearing for respondent no. 2.2. the petitioners have alleged that respondent no. 2 was working in the project of the petitioner and after the project came to an end and the dues of respondent no. 2 were paid. annexure-6 is the copy of receipt by respondent no. 2 regarding full and final payment. thereafter it appears that respondent no. 2 approached the district consumer forum, sonebhadra, which has passed the impugned order against which this petition has been filed.3. in our opinion, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. the jurisdiction of the district consumer forum is limited to the matters prescribed under section 11 of the consumer protection act. 1986 read with sections 2(c), 2(e) and 2(o) of the act. the dispute in the present case is regarding service conditions of respondent no. 2. in annexure-1 to the petition which is a copy of the plaint, the prayer is that respondent no. 2 should be paid gratuity and arrears of salary. in our opinion, this does not come within the scope of the consumer protection act. as regards gratuity, respondent no. 2 should have approached the authority concerned under the payment of gratuity act, and as regards his salary, he should approach the appropriate forum. however, we are of the clear opinion that the district consumer forum has no jurisdiction in service matters. hence, we quash the impugned order.4. the writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 9th april, 1997 is quashed. there will be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.

1. Heard Sri Janardan Sahai and Shri A. N. Mulla learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U. K. Uniyal appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioners have alleged that respondent No. 2 was working in the project of the petitioner and after the project came to an end and the dues of respondent No. 2 were paid. Annexure-6 is the copy of receipt by respondent No. 2 regarding full and final payment. Thereafter it appears that respondent No. 2 approached the District Consumer Forum, Sonebhadra, which has passed the impugned order against which this petition has been filed.

3. In our opinion, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. The Jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum is limited to the matters prescribed under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 read with Sections 2(c), 2(e) and 2(o) of the Act. The dispute in the present case is regarding service conditions of respondent No. 2. In Annexure-1 to the petition which is a copy of the plaint, the prayer is that respondent No. 2 should be paid gratuity and arrears of salary. In our opinion, this does not come within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. As regards gratuity, respondent No. 2 should have approached the authority concerned under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and as regards his salary, he should approach the appropriate forum. However, we are of the clear opinion that the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction in service matters. Hence, we quash the impugned order.

4. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 9th April, 1997 is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1998 Same Parties Rajesh Kumar and Others vs District Consumer Protection Forum... Same Subject Civil Same Judge M. Katju and; S.L. Saraf, JJ. Acts & Sections Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 11

Civil