JUDGMENT
M. Ramachandran, J.
1. The Divisional Forest Officer, Parambikulam is the petitioner in the above Original Petition, who challenges the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad. A copy of the order is produced as Ext. P3. A retired government servant had filed an application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad requiring the Forum to issue appropriate direction to the Divisional Forest Officer to pay him the benefit of interest arising out of delayed payment of commutation benefits. Before the Forum, the Divisional Forest Officer had projected the reason for the delay as one emanating from the part of the employee himself as disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. However, overlooking these objections a direction had been issued for payment of interest within a deadline. The operation of the order has been stayed by this Court.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Forum had acted in a manner wholly without jurisdiction. The “consumer” is defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following terms:
“(d) ‘consumer’ means any person who –
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person;
Explanation:- For the purposes of Sub-clause (i), “commercial purpose” does not include use by the consumer of goods brought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment.”
2. However, an employee or for that matter, a government servant can, by no stretch of imagination, be treated as a consumer vis-a-vis his employer. A dispute of the nature adjudicated by the Forum therefore was without jurisdiction. It was never intended by the enactment and the claim as been entertained without jurisdiction and the award is therefore a nullity, ab initio void and cannot be enforced.
3. Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, counsel appearing for the first respondent, submits that an objection has not been taken before the Forum as regards the maintainability of the dispute. But that cannot salvage the situation. The office of the Forum had the duty to see the nature of the claim, and in case of doubt present it before the members before formally entertaining it. Though the petitioner might have had grievance, the claim as presented before the wrong authority was frivolous.
4. The objection, as presently stated in the Original Petition as regards the maintainability of the claim is sustainable. It will be appropriate that authorities, who are appointed to function under special enactments, act well within their jurisdictional area and limits. Transgression result in loss of valuable time, accumulation of work and unenforceable orders, bringing discredit not only to the Institution but to the system of Rule of Law. The purpose of a statute and the mischief sought to be remedied are to be stubbornly borne in mind, even though the litigants may place before them matters indiscriminately and seek for remedy. A judicious approach by the authorities and restraint are therefore desirable.
5. The Forum had entertained the petition as the complainant was a heart patient and in dire need of funds. Principles of justice and equity may weigh with the Tribunal, but on such occasions it is necessary to remember that what is administered in Court is justice according to law. A sense of justice or compassion of the deciding authority may not always justify passing of an order without jurisdiction, and in most cases in fact ultimately it end up in a disservice, as has happened in the present case. The issue evidently has got indefinitely delayed. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs envisaged under the Constitution of India are conferred on the High Courts alone and other statutory functionaries are expected to adjudicate matters and pronounce orders as envisaged within the four corners prescribed by the respective enactments. No plenary or inherent powers had been intended to be vested with them.
6. The Original Petition is therefore allowed and Ext. P3 is set aside. The
resultant rejection of the claim may not be understood as precluding the rights of the
retired Government servant. He may agitate over the claims before the appropriate
Forum as might be legally permissible. There will be no order as to costs.