Delhi High Court
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. vs National Commission For ... on 11 February, 2020
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 11.02.2020
+ W.P.(C) 12490/2018 & CM No.48481/2018
FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Raghavendra S. Srivatsa,
Mr.Venkita Subramaniam,
Mr.Rahat Bansal, Mr.Lekhi
Chand Bonsle & Mr.Meher
Prakash, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES,
AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, AAG State
of Haryana.
Mr.Keshav Tiwari, Adv. for R-
4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 1, National Commission
for Scheduled Castes, on a complaint filed by the respondent no. 4.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 joined
the services of the petitioner on 01.07.2007 as a Junior Assistant and
on 18.04.2011, he was promoted as Assistant Officer. In 2013, as the
WP(C) No. 12490/2018 Page 1
petitioner Company was undergoing re-structuring of the department,
an offer for voluntary resignation which included compensation, was
made to the respondent no. 4. He accepted this offer and submitted his
resignation on 09.12.2013. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 encashed the
cheque of compensation which was for an amount of Rs. 5,35,000/-, in
January 2014 itself.
3. The respondent no. 4, however, gave a representation to the
Vice President secretariat and on such complaint, the dispute was
inquired by the police as also by the Labour Department. Both the
authorities closed such investigations. However, the respondent no. 1
by an order dated 22.05.2018, observed that the resignation appears to
have been obtained from respondent no. 4 by playing fraud and under
pressure by the petitioner. By the said order, the Commissioner of
Police, Gurugram was directed to get the case re-examined. By a
subsequent order/notice dated 24.10.2018, the respondent no. 1
directed the Labour Commissioner to ensure the presence of the
Managing Director of the petitioner before the Commission on the
next date of hearing. Aggrieved by the proceedings before the
respondent no. 1, the petitioner filed the present petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent no. 1 would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint
of the respondent no.4 under Article 338(5) of the Constitution of
India. He places reliance on the Judgments of this Court in National
Seed Corporation Ltd. vs. National Commission for SC & ST & Anr,
201 (2013) DLT 74; Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Lal Chand
WP(C) No. 12490/2018 Page 2
& Ors., 204 (2013) DLT 118 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Union of India & Ors., MANU/DE/2761/2018.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4
submits that the resignation of the respondent no. 4 was obtained by
force and by putting illegal pressure. He submits that the respondent
no. 4 had immediately complained about the same by writing an e-
mail. He further submits that as the respondent no. 4 was the only
Scheduled Caste candidate who was removed from the services by the
petitioner, the complaint of the respondent no. 4 was maintainable
before the Commission.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has
handed over a copy of the complaint filed by the respondent no. 4
before the respondent no. 1. Apart from mentioning in the subject
matter of the complaint that he was a Scheduled Caste candidate, the
entire complaint does not make any reference of any Constitutional or
Statutory Rights of the respondent no. 4, as a Scheduled Caste being
violated by the petitioner. Infact, the complaint is one of seeking
resignation by exercising force. It does not even state that the
resignation was sought only against the respondent no. 4 who
happened to be a Scheduled Caste candidate. Infact, in the counter
affidavit filed by the respondent no. 4 before this Court, the
respondent no. 4 himself gives names of three more persons whose
services were terminated by the petitioner during the period in
question. However, they are not stated to be belonging to Scheduled
Caste category.
WP(C) No. 12490/2018 Page 3
7. In Lal Chand & Ors. (Supra), this Court has held that an
enquiry in terms of sub Clause (b) of Clause 5 of Article 338 of the
Constitution of India can be initiated by the Commission only where
the complaint relates to specific incident of depriving a person of the
rights conferred upon and safeguards provided for the persons, who as
a class belong to Scheduled Castes. It is only such deprivation as a
Scheduled Caste, which can be made a subject matter of such an
enquiry by the Commission.
8. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), this Court
reiterated that a complaint relating to mere commercial disputes
cannot be made the subject matter of inquiry before the
Commissioner.
9. Similarly in National Seed Corporation Ltd. (Supra), this Court
held that challenge to voluntary retirement scheme which does not
have any challenge based on the specific rights and safeguards of the
Scheduled Caste, cannot be made subject matter of inquiry by the
Commission.
10. In view of the above well-settled principles of law, the exercise
of jurisdiction by the respondent no. 1 on the complaint of the
respondent no. 4 is clearly unsustainable.
11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
complaint filed by the respondent no. 4 before the respondent no. 1
shall be deemed to have been closed as not maintainable. There shall
be no order as to cost.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2020/rv
WP(C) No. 12490/2018 Page 4
