An employee under a contract of personal service cannot be considered a 'consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Prohibition, Prohibiting the 1st respondent from proceeding with the Consumer Complaint in C.C. No.3 of 2014 filed by the 2nd respondent and pending on its file.)

1.This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent before the District Consumer Redressal Forum.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent was appointed as a Professor in the Computer Science Department with effect from 29.12.2011. The 2nd respondent seems to have expressed his willingness to resign from his post and wanted to pursue full time Phd., course. The 2nd respondent paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation in lieu of one month's notice period as per the appointment order. There was some dispute between the management and the 2nd respondent in this regard.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent proceeded to file a complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum and he had sought for compensation against the petitioner by stating that the petitioner had illegally collected a sum of Rs.70,000/- from him and it resulted in mental agony and hardship to the 2nd respondent. This complaint was entertained by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Heard Mr.A.R.Karunakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1. 5.The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier judgment of this Court in Indian Bank .vs. The President and another, made in W.P.No.8122 of 2022, dated 21.02.2003.

6. This Court was dealing with a dispute between the employer and employee and after considering the earlier judgments, this Court categorically held that the employee, who was under a contract of personal service cannot come within the definition of “consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder:

10. The second respondent appearing in person would contend that since interest is to be given for the delayed credit of commutation amount, the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction. Though the second respondent has cited several decisions in support of his claim, on going through the factual details therein, I am of the view that the same are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Though the relationship comes to an end when the employees are relieved after the acceptance of VRS applications, since the question that is to be decided relates to VRS., formulated and implemented by the bank under certain terms and conditions, and also relates to "contract of personal service" in the exclusionary part of Section 2(1)(o), it must be construed as excluding the services rendered by an employer to his employee under the contract of personal service from the ambit of the expression "service". Though as per Section 12 of the Act, the first respondent can entertain complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided, since neither goods were sold to the second respondent nor service availed from the petitioner, I am of the view that the entertainment of the complaint of the second respondent by the District Consumer Redressal Forum is without jurisdiction and the objection raised in this score by the bank is well-founded. It is to be noted that this Court is not under-estimating the entitlement of the second respondent. It is also made clear that this Court has not considered the eligibility or otherwise of the claim of the second respondent. In the light of the various provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, the service conditions of the 2nd respondent, more particularly the VRS and other terms and conditions and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, I a