PRINCIPAL C KANDASWAMI NAIDU COLLEGE FOR WOMEN CUDDALORE Vs. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYLAPORE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer in the English Department of C. Kandaswami Naidu College for Women, the principal of which is the petitioner herein. She filed O.P. No.238 of 1994 against the petitioner and the third respondent viz.. the Pachayappa's Trust claiming a sum of Rs.55,000 towards damages and interest loss for the delayed settlement of her superannuation benefits. Neither the Government nor the Director of Collegiate Education are parties to the said petition. THE second respondent retired from service on 31.5.1991. THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the first respondent forum to decide the claim made by the second respondent before it. THE prayer in the writ petition is for issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding with the trial of O.P. No.238 of 1994 filed by the second respondent herein.

(2.) THE short submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputes between employer and employee are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act and they cannot be agitated before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Secondly, it is submitted that even according to the affidavit filed by the second respondent before the forum, the contract of employment between her and the college had already ended and the amount due to her is payable by the Government and not by the college. It is expressly stated in paragraph 6 of her affidavit that the case cannot be treated as a case of employee against employer for non-payment of dues and in this case pension P.F. etc., are not payable by the employer. However, it is urged in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit that it is the statutory and quasi contractual obligation on the part of the Principal of the College to forward the papers on time to the Government and in view of the delay caused by the Principal, she is put to loss and damage, which according to her, she is entitled to claim before the forum. Yet another contention raised by learned counsel is that educational institutions are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.) THE Supreme Court had held in Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and another, (1994)1 S.C.C. 397, that if there is no privity of contract between the parties, there can be no "deficiency" in service as contemplated in Sec.2(g) of the Act and therefore, an action is not enforceable before the Consumer Forum. In this case, no doubt there was a contract of service between the second respondent and the third respondent but the payment of salary and all other benefits has to be made by the Government. No amount is payable by the petitioner as such. Hence, the dispute cannot go before the Consumer Forum.