AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—The Director and the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education have filed W.P.(C) 10690 of 2008 praying for quashing Exts.P3 and P4. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha in OP No. A.221/2003 filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3859 of 2008. In that writ petition, what he seeks is a direction to pay the amount due under the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum referred to above.
Petitioner is a retired lecturer from SD College, Alappuzha. After his retirement, he approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by filing Ext.P1 complaint praying for a direction to pay Rs. 1,16,460.40, being the balance PF amount as on 30.9.2003 with interest, compensation and costs. Ext.P2 is the objection that was filed by the respondents before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in which the dispute raised was regarding the amount claimed by the teacher. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum overruled the objections and passed Ext.P3 order and directed payment of Rs. 1,16,460/-. The amount was not paid. Therefore revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and Exts.P5 and P6 revenue recovery notices were issued. It is in this background the Director and the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education filed W.P.(C) 10690 of 2008 challenging Exts.P3, P5 and P6 and the teacher concerned has filed W.P.(C) 3859 of 2008 seeking expeditious recovery of the amount due.
The submission made by the learned Government Pleader is that in view of Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a teacher is not a consumer in as much as he has been rendering service under a contract of personal service. The learned Government Pleader has also relied on the Apex Court judgment in State of Orissa Vs. Divisional Manager, LIC and another, and the judgment of this Court in Secretary, Education Department and Anr. v. T.M. Thankappan Achary and Ors. ILR 2007(3) Ker. 555. In these two judgments, according to the learned Government Pleader, a Government employee has been held to be outside the purview of the Act in view of the definition contained in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
However, learned Counsel for the teacher has referred me to the various provisions of the Kerala Private College Teachers'' Provident Fund as available under the Kerala University First Statute, 1976, the benefit of which is claimed by him. He has also referred me to the judgment of the Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, . Going by the judgment in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, where claim of PF dues under the EPF Act was raised in a proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and overruling the objections including the one raised relying on Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court had upheld the order directing payment of the PF dues.
Therefore, in my view, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, is a judgment more appropriate to the facts of this case and is applicable to the case of the teacher. That apart, this objection has not been raised before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum while the matter was adjudicated, though it may be possible for the State to raise this contention, it being a legal argument. In any case, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 2000 SC 331, I am not inclined to agree with the learned Government Pleader and therefore W.P.(C) 10690 of 2008 filed by the Director and the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education seeking to quash the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in OP No. A.221/2003 and Exts.P5 and P6 revenue recovery notices will stand dismissed.
W.P.(C) 3859 of 2008 filed by the teacher will stand allowed and there will be a direction to the respondents to take immediate steps for recovering the amount ordered by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha in OP No. A.221/2003 and pay the amount to the petitioner therein. The recovery shall be made as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) 3859 of 2008.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above.