# Rajesh Kumar v. D.C.P.F., Sonebhadra & another

- **Citation:** (1999) 1 ILRA 177
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-kumar-v-d-c-p-f-sonebhadra-another-39086
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 177
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7('
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
$//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 6/ 6$5$) -
7+( +21·%/( 6/ 6$5$) -
:ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
5DMHVK .XPDU RWKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW &RQVXPHU 3URWHFWLRQ )RUXP
«5HVSRQGHQWV
6RQHEKDGUD 83 DQRWKHU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHUV
 6UL $1 0XOLD
 6UL -DQDUGDQ 6DKDL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6&
 6UL 9. 8QL\DO
&RQVXPHU 3URWHFWLRQ $FW 6 UHDGZLWK 6 F H R2
MXULVGLFWLRQ RI &RQVXPHU )RUXP2RUGHU SDVVHG UHODWLQJ WR VHUYLFH
PDWWHU2KHOG WRWDOO\ ZLWKRXW MXULVGLFWLRQ2RUGHU SDVVHG E\ WKH
IRUXP TXDVKHG
By the Court

Heard Sri Janardan Sahai learned councel for the petitioner and Sri
U.K.Uniyal appearing for respondent no.2

The petitioner have alleged that respondent no.2 was working in the
project of the petitioner and after the project came to an end the dues
of respondent no. 2 were paid and after the project came to an end
the dues of respondent no.2 were paid. Annxure 6 is the copy of
receipt by respondent no.2 regarding full and final payment.
Thereafter it appears that respondent no.2 approached the district
Consumer Forum, Sonebhadra, which has passed the impugned order
against which this petition has been filed.

In our opinion , the impugned order is wholly without Jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of the District Consumer is limited to the matters
prescribed under Section 11 of the Consumer Proctection , Act,1986
read with section 2(c),2(e) and 2(o) of the Act. The dispute in the
present case is regarding services condition of respondent no.2 in
1998
------
November, 19
178 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
Annexure-1 to the petition which is a copy of the plaint the prayer is
that respondent no.2 should be gratuity and appears of salary. In our
opinion, this does not come within the score of consumer Protection
Act. As regards gratuity, respondent no.2 should have approached
the authority concerned under the payment of Gratuity Act and as
regards his Salary, he should approach the appropriate forum.
However, we are of the clear opinion that the District Consumer
Forum has no jurisdiction in service matters. Hence , we quash the
impugned order.

The Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impunged order
dated 9th April,1997 is quashed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 6/
7+( +21·%/( 6/ 6$5$) -
 6$5$) -
:ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
0V $MD\ ,URQ 6WHHO :RUNV DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
8QLRQ RI ,QGLD RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHUV
 6UL 9. 6KXNOD
 6UL $WXO .XPDU 3DQGH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6UL 0RKG ,VKD .KDQ
 6UL 61 6ULYDVWDYD
 6UL &KDQGUD 3UDNDVK
 6&
,QGLDQ 7HOHJUDSK 5XOHV25XOH 2FRQVXPHU KDYLQJ PRUH WKDQ
RQH WHOHSKRQH FRQQHFWLRQ2GHIDXOW FRPPLWWHG LQ SD\PHQW RI %LOO LQ
UHVSHFW
RI
RQH
FRQQHFWLRQ2RWKHU
FRQQHFWLRQV
DOVR
PXVW
EH
GLVFRQQHFWHG 3DUD

1998
------
Rajesh Kumar
 Vs.
D.C.P.F.,
Sonebhadra
& another
------
M. Katju, J.
S.L.Saraf, J.
1998
------
November, 18