Madras High Court
The Secretary vs The Registrar on 17 August, 2022
W.P.No.11106 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.11106 of 2014
and MP.No.1 of 2014
1.The Secretary
Asan Memorial Educational Institutions
Cochin House
No.1, Anderson Road
Chennai 600 006.
2.The Principal
Asan Memorial College of
Engineering & Technology
Chengalpattu to Mahabalipuram Road
Thandarai Village
Chengalpattu-603105. ... Petitioners
.Vs.
1.The Registrar
The Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum Kanchipuram District
Sub-Collector Office Compound
G.S.T.Road
Melamaiyur Village
Chengalpattu.
2.Mr.Mariappan ..Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.11106 of 2014
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a
Writ of Prohibition, Prohibiting the 1st respondent from proceeding with the Consumer
Complaint in C.C. No.3 of 2014 filed by the 2nd respondent and pending on its file.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.R.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kumaravel
Additional Government Pleader
for R1
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the 2nd
respondent before the District Consumer Redressal Forum.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the 2 nd respondent was appointed as a Professor
in the Computer Science Department with effect from 29.12.2011. The 2 nd respondent
seems to have expressed his willingness to resign from his post and wanted to pursue full
time Phd., course. The 2nd respondent paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation in lieu
of one month's notice period as per the appointment order. There was some dispute
between the management and the 2nd respondent in this regard.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent proceeded to file a
complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum and he had sought for compensation
against the petitioner by stating that the petitioner had illegally collected a sum of
Rs.70,000/- from him and it resulted in mental agony and hardship to the 2 nd respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11106 of 2014
This complaint was entertained by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present
writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4.Heard Mr.A.R.Karunakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1.
5.The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier
judgment of this Court in Indian Bank .vs. The President and another, made in
W.P.No.8122 of 2022, dated 21.02.2003.
6.This Court was dealing with a dispute between the employer and employee and
after considering the earlier judgments, this Court categorically held that the employee,
who was under a contract of personal service cannot come within the definition of
“consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The relevant portions in the
judgment are extracted hereunder:
10. The second respondent appearing in person would contend that since
interest is to be given for the delayed credit of commutation amount, the Consumer
Forum has jurisdiction. Though the second respondent has cited several decisions
in support of his claim, on going through the factual details therein, I am of the
view that the same are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the case on
hand. Though the relationship comes to an end when the employees are relieved
after the acceptance of VRS applications, since the question that is to be decided
relates to VRS., formulated and implemented by the bank under certain terms and
conditions, and also relates to "contract of personal service" in the exclusionary
part of Section 2(1)(o), it must be construed as excluding the services rendered by
an employer to his employee under the contract of personal service from the ambit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11106 of 2014
of the expression "service". Though as per Section 12 of the Act, the first
respondent can entertain complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or
agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided,
since neither goods were sold to the second respondent nor service availed from
the petitioner, I am of the view that the entertainment of the complaint of the
second respondent by the District Consumer Redressal Forum is without
jurisdiction and the objection raised in this score by the bank is well-founded. It is
to be noted that this Court is not under-estimating the entitlement of the second
respondent. It is also made clear that this Court has not considered the eligibility or
otherwise of the claim of the second respondent. In the light of the various
provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, the service conditions of the 2nd
respondent, more particularly the VRS and other terms and conditions and in view
of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, I am satisfied that the first
respondent committed an error in entertaining the complaint filed by the second
respondent and I hold that the action of the first respondent in issuing Notice to the
petitioner is without jurisdiction. It is also brought to my notice that the President
of Indian Bank Voluntary Retirees Welfare Association has filed two writ petitions
viz., W.P. Nos. 12075/2001 and 6751/2001 before this Court seeking for certain
directions to the bank regarding their retirement benefits like Provident Fund,
Gratuity, Pension as per Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, etc.
If that is so, it is for them to pursue the claim in this case on the same line. Further,
as stated earlier, the second respondent is permitted to file a suit or writ petition
before this Court to vindicate his grievance.
11. In the light of what is stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed with the
above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
7.In the present case, the 2nd respondent was admittedly working as a Professor in
the Educational Institution run by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent by no stretch can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11106 of 2014
held to be a consumer or a person, who had availed a service from the petitioner. If these
fundamental requirements are not satisfied, it was not open to the 1 st respondent to
entertain the complaint and the complaint being entertained by the 1st respondent and
issuing notice to the petitioner is beyond the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent, which
requires the interference of this Court.
8.In the result, the complaint pending on the file of the 1st respondent in C.C.No.3 of
2015, is hereby quashed and accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.08.2022
KP
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes/No
To
The Registrar
The Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum Kanchipuram District
Sub-Collector Office Compound
G.S.T.Road
Melamaiyur Village
Chengalpattu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11106 of 2014
N.ANAND VENKATESH. J.,
KP
W.P.No.11106 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11106 of 2014
17.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
