JUDGMENT :

1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of CPC is at the instance of the employer being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Consumer Forum holding that the opposite party no. 1 as a consumer and thereby directing the employer not to cause any hindrance to the opposite party from enjoying electricity service 24X7 at his quarter being no. 7/785 K.C. Mills, Garden Reach Road in Appeal No. A/359/2018 on 19.11.2019.

2. Facts necessary for determination of the present revisional application in gist is that works in employer Kesoram Textile Mills Limited at Metiabruz is under suspension since 1999. The opposite party Sri Thakur Singh was appointed as a Staff Trainee.

3. The appellants have contended that the opposite party was never provided with any official quarter. The petitioner has wrongly occupied one of the vacant quarters at Kesho Colony by breaking pad lock and thereby illegally using the electricity beyond the free100 units.

4. On the contrary it is the case of the employee, the employer at its own whims and decision supply electricity in quarters located at Kesho colony putting the occupiers in a great hardship. In order to overcome the difficulties faced by him due to non-supply of regular electricity in his quarter he intend to take connection from CESC, but due to non-issuance of NOC by the employer he is unable to get any connection.

5. However, it appears that employee has moved District Consumer Forum for redressal of his cause. The District Consumer Forum, South 24 Parganas, has held that opposite party being an employee of the mill and who is enjoying free 100 units of electricity from the mills is not a consumer. Since, the employee is being provided with the free electricity up to 100 units in a month by the employer against contract of personal service in the official quarter does not come within the definition of service as provided under Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thereby the District Consumer forum has been pleased to dismiss the case.

6. Being aggrieved the employee moved the State Consumer Forum. However, State Consumer Forum held that employee to be a consumer and as such he is entitled to get 24 hours electricity supply in his quarter and directed the employer to provide electricity service 24X7 hours to the quarter of the employee and also imposed litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

7. After considering the argument advance by the learned Advocates for the parties this Court intends to determine whether the present revisional application is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner by way of an appeal before the National Commission?

8. Petitioner has referred to following decision;-

1. Tej Bahadur Thapa vs. Branch Manager of District Central Co-Operative Bank & Anr., reported in (2017) 1 Cal LT Page 437

2. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261

3. The Operation Manager, Auto Loan Consumer Service Dept vs Praveen Khaitan., reported in 2012 SCC Online Cal 2482

4. L&T Finance Ltd vs Anup Kumar Bera and Anr., reported in 2014 SCC Online Cal 1447.

5. Bhaskar Jalan and Anr vs. M/S Housing Estates Pvt. Ltd and Ors., reported in 2016 SCC Online Cal 1806.

6. Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 651

7. Laxman Kini, A. Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank and Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 651.

8. H.B.Gandhi vs Gopi Nath & Sons., reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312.

9. Dharamveer & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 469.

10. Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329.

9. On the other hand the opposite parties refer to the following decisions;-

1. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2005) 2 SCC 673.

2. Babu Verghese & Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Keral