ORDER : 1. No one appears on behalf of the respondent in both the writ petitions, despite valid service of notice upon it. The record of the case suggests that this Court vide orders dated 14.06.2019 and 07.01.2020 proceeded to hear the case on merit. 2. Both the writ petitions have been filed for quashing order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as “Consumer Forum, Dhanbad”) in E.A. Case No. 9/2013 and E.A. Case No. 8/2013 respectively, whereby the petitions dated 17.01.2014, 28.02.2014 and 11.12.2015 filed by the petitioners have been rejected. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petitions is that the petitioners were the employees of Hindustan Zink Limited, Dhanbad and were separated from the service on 31.03.2006 under voluntary retirement scheme. The respondent paid the final dues but retained a sum of Rs. 54,237/- of the petitioner-Abhimanyu Kumar Das and Rs. 36,137/- of the petitioner-Baliram Prasad. The petitioners filed Complaint Case Nos. 561/2008 and 560/2008 respectively against the respondent in the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad seeking refund of the said amount with interest from the respondent. The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to decide such dispute. However, the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad passed a common order dated 06.10.2009 in the aforesaid complaint cases with a direction to the respondent to clear the claims of the petitioners after deducting penal rent of Rs. 500/- plus Rs. 100/- as electricity charges, in Total Rs. 600/- per month from the date after two months of their retirement till the date of vacation of the quarters. The petitioners were also directed to vacate the said quarters within 30 days from the date of the order dated 06.10.2009 for getting the amount, if any, from the respondent. The petitioners challenged the said order by preferring appeal before the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission, Ranchi”) which was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2012 affirming the order of the Consumer Forum. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.A. No. 9/2013 and E.A. No. 8/2013 respectively before the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad for execution of order dated 06.10.2009 passed by it and affirmed by the State Commission, Ranchi. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.A. No. 9/2013 and E.A. No. 8/2013 respectively before the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad for execution of order dated 06.10.2009 passed by it and affirmed by the State Commission, Ranchi. The petitioners appeared in the said execution and filed their objection contending that since the petitioners are not the consumers in terms with Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint cases preferred before the Consumer Forum were not maintainable and the order passed by the Consumer Forum is thus not executable. However, the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad vide impugned order dated 13.05.2016 passed in E.A. No. 9/2013 and E.A. No. 8/2013 respectively rejected the said contention of the petitioners and proceeded ahead with the execution case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad failed to appreciate that no complaint could have been entertained by it for realization of the dues from the employer and as such, the orders dated 06.10.2009 and 10.05.2012 passed by the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad and the State Commission, Ranchi respectively are nullity and not executable. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director Health Services, Haryana, (2013) 10 SCC 136 . 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. 6. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I have gone through the said judgment, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: “9. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the root of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a court or tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a court/tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetrate and perpetuate defeating of the legislative animation. The court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. Similarly, if a court/tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetrate and perpetuate defeating of the legislative animation. The court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230 , Nai Bahu vs. Lala Ramnarayan, (1978) 1 SCC 58 , Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. vs. Navrang Studios, (1981) 1 SCC 523 and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, (1999) 3 SCC 722 . 10. In Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193 this Court, after placing reliance on a large number of its earlier judgments particularly in Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, (1976) 1 SCC 496 , Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 and Chandrika Misir vs. Bhaiya Lal, (1973) 2 SCC 474 held, that a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity. It is a coram non judice; when a special statute gives a right and also provides for a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the common law court has no jurisdiction; where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in specified manner, performance cannot be forced in any other manner. 11. The law does not permit any court/tribunal/authority/forum to usurp jurisdiction on any ground whatsoever, in case, such an authority does not have jurisdiction on the subject-matter. For the reason that it is not an objection as to the place of suing “it is an objection going to the nullity of the order on the ground of want of jurisdiction.” Thus, for assumption of jurisdiction by a court or a tribunal, existence of jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent. But once such jurisdictional fact is found to exist, the court or tribunal has power to decide on the adjudicatory facts or facts in issue. Setrucherla Ramabhadraraju vs. Maharaja of Jeypore, (1918-19) 46 IA 151 : (1919) 10 LW 362 : AIR 1919 PC 150 , State of Gujarat vs. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot, (1996) 5 SCC 477 , Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 791 and Carona Ltd. vs. Parvathy Swaminathan and Sons, (2007) 8 SCC 559 .” 7. Setrucherla Ramabhadraraju vs. Maharaja of Jeypore, (1918-19) 46 IA 151 : (1919) 10 LW 362 : AIR 1919 PC 150 , State of Gujarat vs. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot, (1996) 5 SCC 477 , Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 791 and Carona Ltd. vs. Parvathy Swaminathan and Sons, (2007) 8 SCC 559 .” 7. It is thus well settled that an employee cannot approach the Consumer Forum seeking payment of gratuity, GPF or other retiral benefits. The object and purpose of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to adjudicate the right of the consumer under the ambit of the said Act. 8. In the present case, the petitioners filed complaint cases before the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad seeking direction to the respondent to pay the retained retiral dues to them. The Consumer Forum, Dhanbad vide order dated 06.10.2009 directed the respondent to pay the dues to the petitioners after deducting the penal rent of Rs. 500/- with Rs. 100/- as electricity charges per month after two months of retirement till the date of vacation of the respective quarters by them. The State Commission, Ranchi vide order dated 10.05.2012 also affirmed the order of the Consumer Forum and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. At present, the execution case preferred by the respondent to execute the order of the Consumer Forum is pending before it. In the meantime, on 11.07.2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (supra) laid down a ratio that no complaint for payment of retiral dues of an employee is maintainable before the Consumer Forum. It was also held inter-alia that the jurisdiction of a court/forum is conferred only by way of legislative function and if any decree is passed by a court having no jurisdiction, the same would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the root of the cause. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case that the issue of jurisdiction of any court/forum can be agitated at any stage of proceeding and if it is found that the court/forum had no jurisdiction to decide the matter, such decision would be unenforceable/inexecutable. 9. Moreover, in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd. (2017) 8 SCC 377 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse. 9. Moreover, in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd. (2017) 8 SCC 377 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse. One cannot have a building without the plinth. Or to put it differently, once the identity of the Managing Director as the sole arbitrator is lost, the power to nominate someone else as an arbitrator is obliterated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has thus held that the view expressed by the High Court is not tenable in law. Further, in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. vs. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “32. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.” 10. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (supra), I am of the considered view that the orders passed by the Consumer Forum in Complaint Case Nos. 561/2008 and 560/2008 respectively and State Commission, Ranchi in First Appeal No. 344/2009 are nullity and, therefore, the same are not executable. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.05.2016 passed in E.A. Case No. 9/2013 and E.A. Case No. 8/2013 respectively by the Consumer Forum, Dhanbad as an executing court rejecting the petitions preferred by the petitioners cannot be sustained in law and are accordingly quashed and set-aside. The respondent is, however, at liberty to work out other recourses as available under law for getting the petitioners vacated from the respective quarters. 12. Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed.