M Vijaya Kumar vs M D West Asia Exports And Imports P Ltd

THIS First Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 2nd November, 1993 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras (for short the State Commission) in O.P. No. 203 of 1993. That complaint had been filed by the Appellant herein against the present respondent. By the impugned Order the State Commission dismissed the complaint.

THE case of the complainant before the State Commission was that he was a Civil Engineer at Madras and was well placed in life. The opposite party offered to get him a job as Project Officer in Bangalore on a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/ -. Because of this promise the complainant gave up his professional connections in Madras, but he could not join the so called job at Bangalore as the project did not commence. Thus he was left in the lurch. The opposite party, there after, asked him whether he was willing to join in the opposite partys Company at Dubai which was doing business in the name and style of Associated Constructions Investments Ltd. The complainant believed that the proposed job at Dubai will be that of Project Manager. The opposite party had taken a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - for securing him a job as Project Manager in the above Company and another sum of Rs. 2,000/ - towards incidental expenses. When the complainant landed at Dubai he came to know that he was appointed as Site Engineer. He was promised bachelor accommodation but he was paid 350 Dirhams per month with which he had to share accommodation with others. He had joined at Dubai on 25th July, 1992 and appointment letter was issued to him. However, the complainants services were terminated on 21st December, 1992 on the pretext that his services were not satisfactory though by that time he had satisfactorily completed his probationary period. He was sent back to India. The complainants case is that the services rendered by the opposite party were deficient. He claimed Rs. 10 lacs as compensation. The opposite party filed a counter resisting the claim. It was averred that the complainant submitted an application for suitable job in response to an advertisement made by the opposite party. The opposite party never gave him any assurance that he would be appointed as Project Officer at Bangalore. By his letter dated the 26th March, 1992 the complainant expressed his willingness to join any job in the Middle East that can offer a salary of 2,000 DHS (UAE). The complainant also stated in that letter that he could fit as Civil Supervisor, Quality Serveyor or Draftsman. The opposite party never assured the complainant that he would get a job as a Project Manager. At Dubai he was offered the post of Site Engineer which is more dignified than the posts mentioned by the complainant in his letter dated the 26th March, 1992 and which carried a higher salary of 2,500 DHS (UAE). The appointment letter dated the 25th July, 1992 which was issued to the complainant at Dubai also shows that in the absence of bachelor accommodation, allowance of 350 DHS (UAE) was to be paid to him per month. It is not correct to say that the complainants services were terminated on the pretext that his services were not satisfactory. In fact, the complainant had misbehaved with a lady employee of the Company by name Ms. Geetha. On inquiry the matter was found against the complainant. The Company, however, took a lenient view and without spoiling his future terminated his services as ''not satisfactory''. It was denied that the complainant had paid Rs. 50,000/ - to the opposite party to get that job. The complainant had only paid Rs. 2,000/ - for which a receipt had been issued to him. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.

THE State Commission found that the story of the complainant that he had paid Rs. 50,000/ - for securing his job was not correct. He had only paid Rs. 2,000/ - towards the incidental expenses for which he had been issued a receipt. It was remarked that if he had paid Rs. 50,000/ - he would have definitely obtained a receipt for the same. The State Commission further remarked that no assurance was given to the complainant that he would be appointed as a Project Manager in Dubai. The State Commission also placed stress upon the letter dated the 26th March, 1992 written by the complainant to the opposite party that he was willing to take iny post in Dubai which might be carrying a salary of 2,000 DHS (UAE) while he was in fact offered the post of Site Engineer at Dubai which carried a higher salary of 2,500 DHS (UAE).

WE have carefully gone through the record as well as the order of the State Commission. Arguments have also been heard. The appointment letter dated 25th July, 1992 issued at Dubai stated therein that the complainant would be given bachelor accommodation or allowance of 350 DHS (UAE) per month and therefore the complainant cannot now complain that he was not given a bachelor accommodation. Of course, in the letter dated May 11,1992 which was issued to the complainant while he was in India stated that bachelor accommodation would be provided for the 1st year period but, that letter was superseded by the letter dated 25th July, 1992 which clearly mentioned that he would be given bachelor accommodation/allowance of 350 DHS (UAE) and he will be eligible for package after one year of completion. That letter is at page

OF the paper book. The complainant joined the post after accepting the terms contained in that letter of appointment and now he cannot have any grievance about the accommodation. 7. On 21st December 1992 the services of the complainant were terminated according to Article 3 or Labour Agreement as his services were not found satisfactory. Of course, before the termination of his services an inquiry was held against the complainant. The report of the enquiry officer is dated 19th December, 1992 which shows misconduct of the complainant towards a lady employee, namely Ms. Geetha.

WE are of the opinion that there is nothing on record to show that the opposite party offered to the complainant the post of Project Manager at Dubai. As noticed above there is also nothing to show that Rs. 50,000/ - were paid by the complainant to the opposite party for securing the job. Only Rs. 2,000/ - were paid for incidental expenses and not as consideration for hiring the services of the opposite party for securing the job. For the reasons given above, we do not find any force and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -