INDIAN BANK Vs. PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Indian Bank through its Assistant General Manager, Central Office, Chennai-1 has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Prohibition, forbearing the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai-4/first respondent herein from deciding or proceeding further in the complaint filed by the second respondent in O.P.No. 309 of 2001.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- According to them, a committee was constituted by the Government of India to study the introduction of Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the Nationalised Banks due to the economic reforms set in 1990. The Indian Bank Association with the approval of the Government of India, made a model policy for the voluntary retirement and advised all Public Sector Banks the salient features of the scheme for implementing the scheme, with the approval of the respective Bank's Board. Thus, the Indian Bank Employees VRS-2000 (hereinafter referred to as "VRS") was formulated in line with the Voluntary Retirement Scheme recommended by Indian Bank Association and the same was adopted by the Bank Board on 7-9-2000. A circular was issued to that effect on 9-11-2000, inviting applications under the VRS from desirous employees/officers. The scheme was kept open for a period of one month from 27-11-2000 to 26-12-2000 for submitting application. According to VRS, permanent employees/officers with a minimum of 15 years of completed service or 40 years of age as on 26-12-2000 are eligible to apply. Having regard to the financial position and the cash flow, it was stated in the VRS that 50 per cent of the ex-gratia amount will be paid in cash, the balance will be paid in bonds/fixed deposits or in instalments as may be decided by the Board of the Bank. After receipt of the applications up-to the last date, a detailed analysis was made by the bank for accepting or rejecting the VRS application received. The Board in its meeting held on 27-12-2000 approved the modalities devised by the bank for relieving the applicants in a phased manner. As on 11-7-2001 all applications received under VRS were disposed of by the bank in accordance with the Scheme. The VRS was introduced by the bank for the specific purpose of revival of the bank. It was not intended to be a welfare scheme to allow the employees whoever wants to get away with huge amount paid as compensation as per the VRS. As per Rule 41 (5)(b) of the Indian Bank Employees Pension Rule, 1995, the commutation amount is determined from the date of submission of application for commutation. In respect of settlement of pension, the guideline approved by Ministry of Finance was circulated by Indian Banks Association to all banks. As per the guideline, the period of time for settling retirement benefits to those who retired under Voluntary Retirement, compulsory premature retirement, retirement on invalid grounds in 3 months from the date of retirement. In the above mentioned categories, the number of employees to be relieved in a given period is very negligible. Whereas under VRS, the employees were relieved in batches. The bank has relieved 3,295 employees within a short period of time. As a result, the pension settlement were made within 3 to 4 months. While so, 144 employees who were relieved on VRS, filed complaints before the first respondent in O.P.Nos. 263 to 406 of 2001. The complaint filed by the 2nd respondent was taken on file as O.P.No. 309 of 2001. The complainant has mentioned in the complaint certain deficiencies in service. Therefore, they are entitled to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The dispute is between employer and employee regarding the benefits accrued in the service. Hence, it cannot be construed that the second respondent is a consumer who consumed any goods or hired any service from the petitioner. Hence the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Further, the service rendered free of charge or contract of personal service is outside the purview of service as defined under Section 2 (1) (o) of the said Act. Accordingly, the complaint cannot be adjudicated by the first respondent.

(3.) The second respondent/complainant before the District Consumer Redressal Forum has not filed counter affidavit, however filed a written argument, stating that the first respondent Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to consider his claim.