MANAGING DIRECTOR, UPSRTC & 3 ORS. vs AMAR SINGH

The Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), Lucknow has filed the instant revision petition, challenging the impugned order dated 27.02.2015, passed by the UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 515/2005, filed by the petitioner, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Forum Bulandshahar in Consumer Complaint No. 118/2003, filed by the present respondent Amar Singh, allowing the said complaint, was confirmed.

The complainant/respondent Amar Singh retired as a senior clerk from the service of UPSRTC on 28.02.1999 after putting in 35 years of service with them. It was stated in the complaint that the opposite party (OP), i.e., UPSRTC was yet to pay his retiral dues amounting to 72,849/- including encashment amount 35,508/-, 5 Grade Pay 24,110/- and other remaining th amount of 13,331/-. He had visited the office of Regional Manager of the UPSRTC many times but his dues had not been released. In their written reply before the District Forum, the UPSRTC admitted that a sum of 34,308/- for encashment and 24,110/- of 5 Grade Pay was still remaining th to be paid upon the completion of formalities and the encashment forms had been sent to the accounts division of their Headquarters.

The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, ordered the payment of the outstanding amount to the complainant, alongwith interest @10% p.a. with effect from 01.03.1999, alongwith compensation of 1000/- and litigation cost of 500/- Being aggrieved against the order, the UPSRTC challenged the same before the State Commission, but their appeal was dismissed vide impugned order on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation and also on the ground that the OPs had failed to explain, as to what formalities were still to be completed by the complainant. Being aggrieved against the said order, the UPSRTC is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During hearing before me, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the only point being agitated by them in the present revision petition was that the dispute between them and their employee should have been adjudicated by a labour court and the complaint made by the complainant was not maintainable before the consumer fora. On a pointed query, whether the dues claimed by the complainants were payable by the petitioner, the Ld. Counsel admitted in all fairness that the said dues were payable to the complainant and had also been paid.

A perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case reveal that the retiral dues claimed by the complainant had not been paid by the petitioner, without assigning any justifiable reason. As stated earlier, this fact has been admitted by them in their written statement filed before the District Forum as well. They have not explained anywhere which formalities were required to be fulfilled, before the release of such retirement benefits. In case, they had made any reference to their Headquarters for seeking any concurrence etc., it was their duty only to obtain the necessary clearances at an early date, so that the retiral benefits could be paid to the complainant promptly. There is obviously, a deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner towards the complainant.

Further, a perusal of the order of the State Commission reveals that there was delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission and the petitioner failed to explain the said delay before them. The State Commission has, therefore, rightly taken the plea that the appeal was barred by limitation. Even during hearing before me as well, the petitioners have not been able to explain, why there was delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. There is no justification, therefore, to interfere with the impugned order on this ground as well.

The main plea taken by the petitioner is that the dispute between the parties needs to have been referred to a labour court and not before the Consumer Fora. In the strict technical sense, it could be stated that the disputes concerning the retiral benefits from public sector undertakings could be settled by the labour courts, but considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, there is no irregularity committed by the consumer fora below in entertaining the complaint submitted by the respondent and more so, in the light of the facts that the grievance stated by the Complainant was genuine. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says that, " The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. " The remedy provided by the Consumer Fora in this case, cannot be stated to be in derogation of any other statute.

During hearing before me, the complainant appeared in person alongwith his wife. Perceivably, he is a handicapped person, finding very difficult to walk on his own or even to speak or see clearly. It is not understood why a public sector undertaking like the petitioner had dragged the respondent to litigation at various levels, fully knowing that the grievance expressed by him in his complaint was genuine and he was entitled to get the dues exactly as stated in the complaint. Such a conduct on the part of the Government undertaking is not considered desirable from any standard and it is expected that the petitioner shall resist from adopting such practices in future, in dealing with their retired employees as well as the general public. This revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and it is ordered that a cost of 20,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within 4 weeks from today for dragging him to unnecessary litigation.