JUDGMENT M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.
1. Heard Sri Janardan Sahai and Shri A. N. Mulla learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U. K. Uniyal appearing for respondent No. 2.
2. The petitioners have alleged that respondent No. 2 was working in the project of the petitioner and after the project came to an end and the dues of respondent No. 2 were paid. Annexure-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.
3. In our opinion, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. The Jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum is limited to the matters prescribed under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 read with Sections 2(c), 2(e) and 2(o) of the Act. The dispute in the present case is regarding service conditions of respondent No. 2. In Annexure-1 to the petition which is a copy of the plaint, the prayer is that respondent No. 2 should be paid gratuity and arrears of salary. In our opinion, this does not come within the scope of the 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.
4. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 9th April, 1997 is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.