EPF–ESI Benefit Disputes Not Consumer Matters: Delhi State Consumer Commission
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that disputes relating to Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) benefits, arising out of an employer–employee relationship, do not constitute consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act.The Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), dismissed...
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that disputes relating to Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) benefits, arising out of an employer–employee relationship, do not constitute consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), dismissed a first appeal filed by Jai Prakash Malik, observing that an employee is not a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
Brief Facts
The appellant was employed with Baba Chaurangi Nath Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, and was drawing a monthly salary of ₹7,410. He alleged that despite being eligible, he was deprived of benefits under the EPF and ESI Schemes as his employer, in connivance with the authorities, failed to deposit statutory contributions on his behalf, resulting in denial of social security benefits.
Aggrieved, Malik filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO – OP No.1) and the Employees' State Insurance authorities (ESI – OP No.2).
The District Consumer Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that disputes between an employer and employee concerning statutory benefits do not fall within consumer jurisdiction and that the complainant was not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Liberty was granted to the complainant to approach the appropriate forum under law.
Challenging this decision, the complainant filed the present first appeal before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, primarily reiterating his claim for ESI unemployment allowance, medical benefits, and monetary compensation following his termination in December 2012.
Contentions of the Opposite Parties
The opposite parties, including the EPFO and the ESI authorities, supported the impugned order and contended that the dispute raised by the appellant arose purely out of an employer–employee relationship and pertained to statutory benefits, which fall outside the scope of consumer jurisdiction.
It was submitted that the appellant was not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and that no deficiency in service could be alleged against the statutory authorities. The opposite parties further argued that the appellant had failed to point out any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Commission, rendering the appeal liable to be dismissed.
Observation and Decision of the Commission
The State Commission observed that the District Commission had dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant was an employee and not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, and therefore the Consumer Forum lacked jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to employment and statutory benefits.
It noted that in the present appeal, the appellant had not challenged this core finding. Instead, he merely reiterated his claims regarding ESI benefits, unemployment allowance, and compensation, without demonstrating any legal error in the District Commission's order.
Since the appeal failed to raise any valid ground to dispute the finding that the matter was not a consumer dispute, the Commission held that the District Commission had rightly dismissed the complaint.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the District Commission was upheld.
Case Details
• Case Title: Jai Prakash Malik v. ESI & Anr.
• Case No.: FA-195/2022