Commission overrules PSICL objection, issues orders for release of illegally deducted amount to complainantCorpn employee falls within definition of ‘consumer’
Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, November 4
Overruling the objection by Punjab Small Industries and Corporation Ltd (PSICL) that its employee does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ and the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain his petition, the Commission has directed the corporation to release an amount of Rs 30,720 illegally deducted from the retirement benefits of an employee.
The Commission has also directed the Senior Deputy General Manager (Personnel) of the corporation to compensate the complainant by paying a compensation of Rs 3,000 for harassing him for so long.
A former employee of the corporation, GS Oberoi, approached the commission after he found that the corporation wrongly deducted Rs 30,720 from his retirement benefits.
This is the first of its kind case when an employee of the corporation moved the commission for justice.
Oberoi retired from the service on March 31, 2010. He said he had written numerous letters to the opposite party (Corporation) for releasing the balance amount of Rs 30,720 but it did not pay any heed.
On the other hand, Punjab Small Industries and Corporation Ltd filed the reply stating that the complainant is an ex-employee of the PSIEC and as such
does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as per The Consumer Protection Act and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that no amount, as alleged in the complaint, is due against the OP and the OP had cleared the entire amount. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
After hearing of the argument, the Commission noted that the objection of the OP that the employee does not fall within the definition is not tenable in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (erstwhile) as well as under newly enacted Act i.e. Section 100 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019) which provides 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”. After taking into account the available facts the Commission directed the corporation to release the amount of Rs 30,720 illegally deducted from the retirement benefits to the complainant. The OP is also directed to compensate the complainant by paying a compensation of Rs 3,000.
