Quashed

District Tourism Promotion Council (D.T.P.C.) v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2021WP(C)/11837/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that the State Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction over service disputes like non-payment of wages. Relying on Regulation 17(f), the Court ruled the Commission must dismiss such complaints in limine. The impugned order adjudicating the service dispute was quashed, and the underlying complaint dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.01.2020 in H.R.M.P.No.7247/11/11/19/KLM is quashed, and the complaint filed by the respondent before the Human Rights Commission is dismissed.

District Tourism Promotion Council (D.T.P.C.) Vs State… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 11837 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL KOLLAM – 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶10

BY ADVS. ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL S.SREEDEV RONY JOSE CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL SUZANNE KURIAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 033.

¶13

2 STATE OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 033.

¶14

3 KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶15

4 C. RAMACHANDRAN NADUVATTHUCHERY, KULANGARATHODIYIL, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM 691 584.

¶16

SR. GP SRI.TEKCHAND FOR R1 & R2 ADV B.MOHANLAL FOR R4

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2021

¶22

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶23

Being aggrieved by Exhibit P5 complaint dated 03.10.2019 submitted by the respondents to the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and Exhibit P7 order dated 30.01.2020 in H.R.M.P.No.7247/11/11/19/KLM passed by the Human Rights Commission, instant writ petition is filed.

¶24

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:

¶25

Petitioner challenges Exhibits P5 and P7. Exhibit P5 is a complaint lodged by the 4^th respondent before the Human Rights Commission, 3^rd respondent herein, alleging nonpayment of back wages and other service benefits by the petitioner. By Exhibit P7, the 3^rd respondent has allowed Exhibit P5. The 4^th respondent, an employee of the petitioner, was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence for more than 6 years. However, by Exhibit P3, he was re-appointed with a specific undertaking that he will not be entitled to back wages and other service benefits during the period, in which he was not in service. By Exhibit P4 the same was accepted. After more than 13

¶26

W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021

¶27

¶28

years, Exhibit P5 complaint was filed before the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon service disputes. Exhibit P5 complaint also does not reveal any human rights violation. The 3^rd respondent is only a fact finding body and can pass recommendatory orders for alleged human rights violation. However the 3^rd respondent has passed Exhibit P7 order in excess of its authority conferred under the statute. Hence this writ petition.

¶29

Defending the order passed by the Commission, Mr.B.Mohanlal, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent/complainant submitted that when the employer obtained signature of the respondent, by virtue of his advantageous position, denying backwages and other service benefits, respondent, being poor, had to approach the Commission vindicating his right.

¶30

According to the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, action of the employer amounts to human rights violation and thus, the Commission has every jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He prayed to sustain the order passed by the Commission in H.R.M.P. No.7247/11/11/19/KLM.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021

¶33

¶34

Inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain a complaint of this nature, relating to service ie., non-payment of wages during the period of out of employement, alone is considered, this court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the case. The purpose for which the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 was brought into force is discernible from the objects and reasons and on an analysis of the same it depicts the nature of the issues that are to be considered by a Commission constituted under the Act.

¶35

Statement of object and reasons of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 shows that the human rights embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 16^th December, 1966 stands substantially protected by the Constitution. However, there has been growing concern in the country and abroad about issues relating to human rights and it was having regard to the said aspect, changing social realities and the emerging trends in the nature of crime and violence, Government has been reviewing the existing laws, procedure and system of administration and transparency in them, and thus devising more efficient and effective methods of dealing with the

¶36

W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021

¶37

¶38

situations that the act in question was introduced. The salient features

¶39

of the Human Rights Bill are as follows:

¶40

“(1) the constitution of a National Human Rights Commission consisting of five members appointed by the President with a chairperson who has been a Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court;

¶41

(2) the Chairpersons of the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the National Commission for Women and the National Commission for Minorities, will be deemed to be Members of the Commission for the discharge of certain functions;

¶42

(3) the Commission will be a fact-finding body with powers to conduct inquiry into complaints of violation of human rights;

¶43

(4) the Commission will be assisted by investigating agencies of the Central and State Government; the Government may also constitute one or more special investigation teams;

¶44

(5) the State Government may set up Human Rights Courts for speedy trial of offences arising out of violations of human rights and may also specify a Public Prosecutor or appoint an advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting cases in such courts;

¶45

(6) the Commission may make recommendations for the effective implementation of the existing laws and treaties on human rights;

¶46

(7) the Commission may undertake research in the field of human rights and take measures to promote awareness of human rights among all section of society;

¶47

(8) the constitution of the State Human Rights Commission on the lines of the National Commission.”

¶48

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(2) read with

¶49

Section 29 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Kerala State

¶50

W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021

¶51

¶52

Human Rights Commission has made the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001. As per Regulation 17, certain complaints are not ordinarily maintainable and that the Commission may dismiss in limine complaints of the following nature:

¶53

(a) Illegible;

¶54

(b) vague, anonymous or pseudonymous;

¶55

¶56

(d) barred under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 36 of the Act;

¶57

(e) allegations do not disclose involvement of any public servant;

¶58

(f) issue raised relates to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial dispute ;

¶59

(g) allegations do not raise any violation of human rights;

¶60

(h) If the matter raised is subjudice before a Court or Tribunal;

¶61

(i) the matter is covered by a Judicial verdict/decision of the National Commission or a State Commission.

¶62

(j) Where the complaint is only a copy of the petition addressed to some other authority.

¶63

(k) Where the petition is not signed or where the original petition is not sent to the Commission;

¶64

(l) Where the matter raised is outside the purview of the Commission or on any other ground.

¶65

As the matter pertains to service dispute, in the light of clause

¶66

(f) of Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission

¶67

(Procedure) Regulations, 2001, in our considered view, the Commission

¶68

W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021

¶69

¶70

ought to have dismissed Exhibit P5 complaint preferred by respondent No.4 in limine.

¶71

To put it clear, undoubtedly the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in service matters and consequently to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, the order passed in H.R.M.P. No.7247/11/11/19/KLM is also without jurisdiction.

¶72

In such a view of the matter, instant writ petition is allowed and Exhibit P7 order dated 30.01.2020 in H.R.M.P.No.7247/11/11/19/KLM is quashed, and consequently Exhibit P5 complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent dated 3.10.2019 on the files of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission is dismissed.

¶73

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

S.Manikumar Chief Justice

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

¶78

vpv

¶79

W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021

¶80

¶81

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11837/2021

¶82

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶83

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31-07-2007 IN O.P NO. 10204/2002 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-06-2008 NUMBERED AS DTPC-K/A/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-08-2019 GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03-10-2019 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 24-12- 2019 AND NUMBERED AS DTPC-K/280/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-01-2020 IN HRMP NO. 7247/11/11/19/KLM ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER TO EXT.P7 DATED 02-03-2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23-02-2021 AND NUMBERED AS E3-12765/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶84

/TRUE COPY/

¶85

P.A. TO JUDGE

District Tourism Promotion Council (D.T.P.C.) v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

District Tourism Promotion Council (D.T.P.C.) v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aswin Manmathan, Vs A.P.J Abdul Kalam Technological University

Leashar Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

State of Kerala Vs Rahul S Krishnan

P.J.Sibi Vs Mayakrishnan S.P

Siyad a. E. Vs State of Kerala(Deleted)

Minority Indians Planning and Vigilance Commission Trust, Vs Pranab Jyothinath IAS