ORDER :

1. No one appears on behalf of the respondent in both the writ petitions, despite valid service of notice upon it. The record of the case suggests that this Court vide orders dated 14.06.2019 and 07.01.2020 proceeded to hear the case on merit.

2. Both the writ petitions have been filed for quashing order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as “Consumer Forum, Dhanbad”) in E.A. Case No. 9/2013 and E.A. Case No. 8/2013 respectively, whereby the petitions dated 17.01.2014, 28.02.2014 and 11.12.2015 filed by the petitioners have been rejected.

3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petitions is that the petitioners were the employees of Hindustan Zink Limited, Dhanbad and were separated from the service on 31.03.2006 under voluntary retirement scheme. The respondent paid the final dues but retained a sum of Rs. 54,237/- of the petitioner-Abhimanyu Kumar Das and Rs. 36,137/- of the petitioner-Baliram Prasad. The petitioners filed Complaint Case Nos. 561/2008 and 560/2008 respectively against the respondent in the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad seeking refund of the said amount with interest from the respondent. The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to decide such dispute. However, the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad passed a common order dated 06.10.2009 in the aforesaid complaint cases with a direction to the respondent to clear the claims of the petitioners after deducting penal rent of Rs. 500/- plus Rs. 100/- as electricity charges, in Total Rs. 600/- per month from the date after two months of their retirement till the date of vacation of the quarters. The petitioners were also directed to vacate the said quarters within 30 days from the date of the order dated 06.10.2009 for getting the amount, if any, from the respondent. The petitioners challenged the said order by preferring appeal before the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission, Ranchi”) which was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2012 affirming the order of the Consumer Forum. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.A. No. 9/2013 and E.A. No. 8/2013 respectively before the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad for execution of order dated 06.10.2009 passed by it and affirmed by the State Commission, Ranchi. The petitioners appeared in the said execution and filed their objection contending that since the petitioners are not the consumers in terms with Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint cases preferred before the Consumer Forum were not maintainable and the order passed by the Consumer Forum is thus not executable. However, the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad vide impugned order dated 13.05.2016 passed in E.A. No. 9/2013 and E.A. No. 8/2013 respectively rejected the said contention of the petitioners and proceeded ahead with the execution case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad failed to appreciate that no complaint could have been entertained by it for realization of the dues from the employer and as such, the orders dated 06.10.2009 and 10.05.2012 passed by the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad and the State Commission, Ranchi respectively are nullity and not executable. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director Health Services, Haryana, (2013) 10 SCC 136.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

6. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I have gone through the said judgment, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:

“9. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior