Back
C. VISWANATH, SUBHASH CHANDRA
Permanent Magnets Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jayashree Dattaram Payyar – Respondent
ORDER
Subhash Chandra—This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails order dated 25.04.2012 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissing Appeal No.2204 of 2011.
2. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 16.01.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai (in short, ‘District Forum’) in consumer complaint no. 271 of 2004 filed by the respondent claiming provident fund benefit in a compensation awarded by the High Court of Mumbai.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Dattaram Payyar, the husband of the respondent no 1, was dismissed from service by the petitioner on 09.03.1992 on grounds of misconduct. The dismissal was challenged before the Industrial/Labour Court in April 1992. During the pendency of the case Dattaram Payyar died on 18.08.1995. The case was decided on 14.05.1998 upholding the dismissal. However, Rs. 25,000/- was awarded on humanitarian grounds at the consent of the petitioner. Before the District Forum, respondent no. 1 claimed deficiency in
(1) Revisional jurisdiction - where two interpretation of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisd....
Jurisdictional error - Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order pass....
Right to Get Redressal - Respondent No.1/Complainant has a right to get redressal in this Commission for deficiency on the party of the Petitioners, who had denied him the pensionary benefit for cert....
Jurisdictional error - Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order pass....
(1) Gratuity - 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.(2) Terminal benefits - The complaint....
Service disputes of public sector employees are beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
Jurisdictional error - Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictiona....
National Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate evidence on record when findings of lower Fora are concurrent on facts.
Revisional jurisdiction - where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdict....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
