Registered Workers of the Board fall under the ambit of Consumer and can avail schemes and services for the same

Kosha Doshi | Symbiosis Law School, Pune | 22nd March 2020

Joint Labor Commissioner and Registering Officer v. Kesar lal [ Civil Appeal No. C.A. No. 2014 of 2020; Supreme Court]

Facts:

            The Union Government under Section 40 and 62 enacted the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998. Similarly, the Rajasthan state framed the Rajasthan Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009. Under the same, a Welfare Board existed wherein several schemes for beneficiaries were stated. One of the schemes passed on 1^st of August, 2011 stated providing of financial assistance of ₹ 51,000/- for the daughter’s marriage of beneficiaries. 

            The respondent applied for the following scheme on the 29^th of December, 2011. The respondent had paid the beneficiary fees regularly and on time. The Joint Commissioner nine months later rejected the application of the respondent and 327 others on reasons of technical defects. The respondent filed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for entitlement of the same services wherein his complaint was dismissed on the 6^th of October, 2016.

            An appeal was filed in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum which set aside the order on 20^th of August, 2019 with a verdict of ₹ 51,000/- to be paid along with 10,000 as compensation and 5,000 as expenses with a 18 % rate of interest. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum overruled the previous judgment and therefore the present appeal was placed before the Supreme Court. 

Issue:

Whether a construction worker who is registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and is a beneficiary of the Scheme made under the Rules framed pursuant to the enactment, is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Judgment:

            The bench hearing the case comprised of Justice DY Chandhrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi who stated that in determining the aforesaid issue meant determining whether the beneficiary of statutory welfare scheme is entitled to exact accountability by invoking remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court laid down that the definition of consumer in relation to hire and availing of services is not limited to the prior and has a much larger and wider ambit. This includes beneficiary of services, not necessary those who are party to the contract only. They come under the definition of consumer not because they are party to the contract but because they are beneficiaries of the policy taken out.

            Reference was made to a few previous judgments to decide the same. The Bihar School Examination Boards question of whether conducting exams falls under the ambit wherein students paying fees for appearing acted as consideration or not; the court held that payment of fees was not consideration but a matter of privilege of participation, thereby declaring them as a non-beneficiary. The Shreepat Rao Kande case where defaulted dues of General Provident Funds were not covered under the ambit of consumers. The Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v Director, Health Services, Haryana 17 (2013) 10 SCC 136 held that government servants claiming retiral benefits needed to approach the State Administrative Tribunal in cases of dispute and not the Consumer Forum. 

            Beneficiary defined under Section 2 (b), funds under Section 2(k), and beneficiaries of funds under Section 11 were noted and keeping this in mind, the bench put forth the function of the Board. Further stating that if a beneficiary commits default in its payment for one continuous year, they would cease to be beneficiaries. But if permission of the Secretary is availed and a fine is paid, the membership could be resumed. The court stated that registered workers are beneficiaries of the service provided by the Board in its statutory capacity. 

            Court observed that the Consumer Protection Act, 1996 is one of a purposive manner. Workers registered are contributing to the Board and therefore need to be entitled to the services. Public accountability is the underlying principle of the act keeping the redressal mechanism to address the same. On the 17^th of March, 2020 the court laid down that Registered Workers of the Board fall under the ambit of Consumer and can avail schemes and services for the same.