Unjustified Salary Deductions For 6 Years, Mysore District Commission Holds Sharp Watch Investigation & Security (SWISS) Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench comprising of A.K. Naveen (President), M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) held Sharp Watch Investigation & Security (SWISS) liable for deficiency in services for failure to pay Rs. 6,41,439 as salary to the Complainant who was employed as a counsellor at the observation centre. It continued to...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench comprising of A.K. Naveen (President), M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) held Sharp Watch Investigation & Security (SWISS) liable for deficiency in services for failure to pay Rs. 6,41,439 as salary to the Complainant who was employed as a counsellor at the observation centre. It continued to deduct a certain part of the Complainant's salary without any justified reason. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 6.4 Lacs to the Complainant along with Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 5,000/- litigation costs.
Brief Facts:
Ms. Visalakshi M.R. (“Complainant”) worked as an outsourced staff member assigned to the District Child Protection Unit (DCPU), Mysuru, serving as a Counselor in the Government Observation Home from 2015 to 2021. Sharp Watch Investigation & Security (“SWISS”), a human resource agency chosen by the DCPU through an e-tender process in June 2015, was tasked with supplying personnel to various childcare institutions, including the Complainant's placement. SWISS received an order from DCPU, specifying the personnel required, approved monthly salaries, and detailed deductions for EPF, ESI, GST, and service charges.
SWISS consistently received payments from the DCPU and was tasked to disburse the monthly salaries to outsourced personnel, including the Complainant, after deducting the specified amounts for EPF, ESI, GST, and service charges. However, the Complainant, a postgraduate in Clinical Psychology, didn't receive the agreed-upon salary of Rs. 13,713/- after deductions. SWISS consistently kept on providing lesser amounts each month. Consequently, SWISS owed her a salary of Rs. 5,58,577/- for the period of service from 2015 to 2021. The Complainant made several communications with SWISS regarding the remaining salary but she didn't receive any satisfactory response from it. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore, Karnataka (“District Commission”) against SWISS.
In response, SWISS contended that the payments were made in adherence to the tender agreement, deducting amounts such as P.F., E.S.I., G.S.T, and service charges. It disputed the Complainant's assertion of unpaid amounts, stating that the Complainant received the full remuneration in accordance with the department's order. It denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the Complainant should seek relief from the department where she provided service rather than pursuing the complaint against them.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission noted that the Complainant has been working as a Counselor since 2012 and, as per a change in government policy, was outsourced to the Government Observation Home for Boys by the DCPU. The monthly salary for the Counselor, as fixed in the order, was Rs. 17,500/-. After deductions for PT, ESI, PF, GST, and service charges of SWISS, the net amount payable to the Complainant was Rs. 13,713/- per month.
The District Commission noted that various documents, including the proceedings of the DCPU, invoices, pay slips, and salary sheets, substantiated the Complainant's claim that SWICC consistently paid lesser amounts than the agreed-upon salary. The District Commission, therefore, held that SWISS committed a deficiency of service by not adhering to the prescribed honorarium for the Complainant.
Consequently, the District Commission directed SWISS to pay Rs. 6,41,439/- to the Complainant within one month, along with an interest rate of 6% per annum from the filing date till the passing of the order. The District Commission also directed SWISS to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.
Case Title: Visalakshi M.R. vs Sharp Watch Investigation & Security (SWISS)
Case No.: 143/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: P.P. Baburaj
Advocate for the Respondent: K. Sanjay