Immigration agency faces rap for U-turn on job assurance

Mukesh Prabhulal Chauhan

, a

commerce graduate

, wanted to migrate to Canada for employment. He approached

Global Education

& Services who charged him Rs2.5 lakh with the assurance they would obtain a work visa or

refund

his money on the principle of “no visa, no fee”.


Since the visa could not be obtained, Chauhan sought a refund, but the agency persuaded him to pay a further

Rs.1.5 lakh

with a promise that this would not only entitle him to get a visa but also a job offer letter.

Since the agency failed to keep its promise, Chauhan filed a consumer complaint. The agency contested, stating the first application for visa was rejected as Chauhan lacked experience in landscaping, horticulture, and maintaining lawns and gardens, and the second time he was found unsuitable for permanent residence in Canada due to lack of proficiency in English.

The Forum allowed the complaint, and ordered the agency to refund Rs4,00,000 along with 9% interest, and also awarded Rs10,000 toward compensation and Rs3,000 as litigation costs. Global Education & Services challenged the order, but Gujarat State Commission dismissed the appeal.

The agency then filed a revision. The National Commission observed the agency was aware Chauhan was a B.Com graduate without any experience. Hence, the agency ought to have found a job opening in an appropriate field. The Commission also observed the agency should have also known about the requirement regarding proficiency in English. Accordingly, it concluded the agency had been rightly found to be deficient in rendering services.

The National Commission pointed out its revision jurisdiction can be invoked only when an order is perverse or contrary to law or when the principles of natural justice have been violated. Since deficiency in service was established by its order of April 10, 2019 delivered by justice V K Jain, the National Commission dismissed the revision and upheld the award passed in Chauhan’s favour.

Conclusion: An agency offering foreign migration and employment services cannot pocket money under the garb that the candidate was not suitable for the job. On the contrary, the agency has a duty to procure suitable job offers according to the candidate’s qualification and skills; otherwise the amount charged has to be refunded.

(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt. of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His email is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in)