IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7982 of 2003 M/S VISHNU SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, Harkhua, P.O. Vishnu Sugar Mills, Dist- Gopalgaanj through its General Manager P.R.S. Panicker…. Petitioner Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Law and Justice, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Labour Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra. 5. The District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj, P.O., P.S. and District- Gopalganj through its President. 6. Sadhu Singh, son of Chuman Singh, resident of village Bhaisahi, P.S. Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj…. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sendior Advocate Mr.V.R. Bharti, Advocate For respondent No.6: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prashant Kumar Choudhary, A.C. to G.P.VII. --- 4. 28.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for private respondent No.6. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint No. 97 of 2002 pending before the District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj, including the order dated 18.6.2003, by which the petitioner’s application regarding the maintainability of the complaint case before the Consumer Forum to be heard as a preliminary issue has been rejected holding that the matter of jurisdiction shall be considered at the time of final hearing and further consequential relief forbidding and restraining the respondent No.5, District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj from continuing - 2 - the said proceedings. Respondent No.6 claims to be an employee of the petitioner company appointed in the year 1993 and continued in employment till April, 2001. He complained about non-payment of salary and wages for the period from May, 1997 to April, 2001 and for the grant of said salary he filed Complaint No. 97 of 2002 before the District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj claiming an amount of Rs. 2,52,000/- as wages with interest at the rate of 10% per annum and further compensation for harassment, etc. The petitioner, on notice, appeared before the District Consumer Forum and a show cause was filed denying the claim of respondent No.6 as also taking the plea that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner company to decide the issue of maintainability as a preliminary issue, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 18.6.2003. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer has been defined, inter alia, as a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for consideration. Only by such a - 3 - consumer or on his behalf, a complaint may be filed regarding the goods claiming shortcoming in its quality or the services hired or availed of being deficient. The Consumer Forums have been established for the purpose of looking into such consumer disputes in which a complaint is made by the consumer or such other persons permitted by the Act. Here a relationship of employer and employee is alleged and relief claimed was for grant of payment of arrears of wages. It is evident that the employee is neither a buyer of goods purchased from the employer nor a hirer of any service from him. In the said circumstances, there can be no question of an employee being permitted to move the Consumer Forum for the purpose of redressal of any of his grievances against the employer. The Consumer Forum being a creature of statute, its jurisdiction only extends to the decision of consumer disputes and not any other matter. It is evident that the relief claimed by respondent No.6 in his complaint before the Consumer Forum is not a consumer dispute as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship of respondent No.6 with the petitioner company is not of a - 4 - consumer nor he can raise any dispute for non- payment of his wages for any period before the Consumer Forum. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the order dated 18.6.2003 cannot stand and the proceedings of Complaint No.97 of 2002 before the District Consumer Forum cannot be permitted to continue and they are, accordingly, quashed. However, it would be open to respondent No.6 to raise a dispute with respect to his alleged unpaid wages before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )