KEDAR NATH MISRA vs U.O.I.

THE Complainant in this case appeared before us in person and addressed his arguments.

THE grievance which the complainant has put forward in the Original Petition arises out of alleged wrongful termination of his service by the Indian Railway Administration by an order dated 10th October, 1954 passed by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway and the alleged non-payment to him of various amounts said to be payable to him (a) by way of arrears of wages wrongfully withheld for the period from February, 1950 to January, 1978; (b) by way of Provident Fund (including employer''s contribution), gratuity and (c) by way of compensation for illegal deductions from wages, undue delay in payment of wages, mental agony etc. amounting in all to Rs. 1,48,65,406/-. The reliefs prayed for in the petition are:" "(1) To declare that there is no cessation of service and the complainant continued to be in the service of the Opposite Party No. 1 as Assistant Station Master under Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 at Gonda, in the scale of Rs. 150-7-225 and is entitled for his full back wages with all consequential benefits of service. (2) To give an Award of Rs. 1,48,65,406/- in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 with orders to pay in such time fixed by your Lordship. In case of non-payment in time, further interest at the rate of l 18% per month from the date of order to be awarded. (3) Award costs of the complainant and Counsel''s fee in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3. (4) To award such other relief in favour of the complainant as your Lordships may think fit and proper."

It may be stated at the outset that the first relief prayed for by the complainant namely the grant of a declaration that the termination of his service was not valid is not one that can be granted by a Consumer Forum in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act where only the reliefs specified in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Act can be awarded to a complainant.

THERE is a mere formidable objection against the maintainability of this petition because the petitioner is not, in our opinion, a "consumer" entitled to invoke in his aid the remedies provide

UNDER the Consumer Protection Act. He was only an employee of the Indian Railways represented by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 and there was no arrangement of hiring by him of the services of Railway for consideration so as to entitle him to claim relief as against the Railway on the ground of any deficiency in service. The correct position is that the Railways had employed the petitioner in their service and the dispute regarding service matters arising as between the employee and the employer have to be agitated before other appropriate forums and not before the Consumer Forum. Though this objection was pointed out to the complainant, he was not able to satisfactorily meet the same. We accordingly dismiss the complaint holding that the complainant is not a "consumer" and that the grievance put forward in the complaint petition does not constitute a ''consumer dispute'' as defined in the Act. There will be no order as to costs.