Issues regarding terminal benefits not within jurisdiction of consumer courts: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum recently held that any disputes regarding withholding of terminal benefits, such as gratuity or provident fund (employer's contribution), would not fall under the jurisdiction of consumer courts. [Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy v State Bank of Hyderabad & Anr.].Presiding member Dinesh Singh and member Karuna Nand Bajpayee issued the order in which it was observed that issues relating to terminal benefits as a whole are to be adjudicated upon by the competent services tribunal or civil court."As far as gratuity is concerned, it is undisputedly a service matter and as such it is not within the purview of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As far as provident fund (bank contribution) is concerned, though it is settled that an employee-member of the employees’ provident fund scheme is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, 1986 the same cannot be said of the bank’s provident fund scheme. ...Also, the pristine rule in vogue is that the issues relating to the entire gamut of terminal benefits as a whole, including provident fund (bank contribution) and gratuity, has been the subject-matter of adjudication by the competent services tribunal or civil court", the order stated..The NCDRC was considering a revision petition moved by the complainant against the orders of the State Commission and District Commission.In 2005, the complainant was dismissed from his job at the bank where he worked as he was found to have secured appointment in the reserved category using a false caste certificate.He approached the District Commission challenging the bank's decision to withhold a portion of the terminal benefits i.e. provident fund (bank contribution) and gratuity on dismissing him from service. The respondent bank had raised a preliminary objection arguing that the petition would not be maintainable as the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act.However, the NCDRC noted that both the District Commission and the State Commission ignored this preliminary objection and entered into the merits of the case.The District Commission had dismissed the case and the State Commission had dismissed it leaving liberty to approach a civil court since the matter involved disputed questions of fact..The NCDRC, after going through the rival contentions, the precedents on the matter, and the material on record, opined that the District and State Commissions ought to have addressed the issue of jurisdiction first and passed speaking orders on the same before proceeding to the merits of the matter.Regarding the issue of jurisdiction, it held that any grievance regarding withholding of the bank's contribution to the provident fund or gratuity are matters to be adjudicated by the competent service tribunal or civil court. Therefore, the orders by both the District and State Commissions were set aside, leaving liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate services tribunal or civil court subject to Section 14 of the Limitation Act. "The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before the District Commission, as the terminal benefits like provident fund (bank’s contribution) and gratuity not being granted on dismissal from service is the subject-matter of the competent services tribunal or civil court. The complaint is returned un-adjudicated, the merits or the nature of the facts remain unexamined by the consumer protection fora. The complainant shall be at liberty to approach the competent services tribunal or civil court to seek remedy as per the law. Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 shall be relevant in respect of the period spent in litigation before the consumer protection fora", the order stated..Advocate Abhishek Chaudhary (appeared as Amicus Curiae) and Advocate Amit Singh represented the petitioner.The Court appreciated the efforts of Amicus and said, “amicus curiae has researched his brief and rendered his assistance…. he (amicus) truly deserves our approbation as he has acted as a true officer of the court in assisting us to arrive at a just and lawful decision.” Advocates Ritesh Khare, Siddharth Sangal and Pawan Kumar Ray represented the respondents..[Read Order]