Kerala High Court
District Tourism Promotion ... vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 11837 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL
KOLLAM - 691 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
S.SREEDEV
RONY JOSE
CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL
SUZANNE KURIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,
PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 033.
2 STATE OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, PARK VIEW,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 033.
3 KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
033
4 C. RAMACHANDRAN
NADUVATTHUCHERY, KULANGARATHODIYIL,
CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM 691 584.
SR. GP SRI.TEKCHAND FOR R1 & R2
ADV B.MOHANLAL FOR R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2021
S.Manikumar, C.J.
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.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as
hereunder:
Petitioner challenges Exhibits P5 and P7. Exhibit P5 is a complaint
lodged by the 4th respondent before the Human Rights Commission,
3rd 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
W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021
years, Exhibit P5 complaint was filed before the 3 rd respondent. The
3rd respondent does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon service
disputes. Exhibit P5 complaint also does not reveal any human
rights violation. The 3rd respondent is only a fact finding body and
can pass recommendatory orders for alleged human rights violation.
However the 3rd respondent has passed Exhibit P7 order in excess of
its authority conferred under the statute. Hence this writ petition.
3. Defending the order passed by the Commission, Mr.B.Mohanlal,
learned counsel for the 4th 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.
4. 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.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021
6. 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.
7. 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
W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021
situations that the act in question was introduced. The salient features
of the Human Rights Bill are as follows:
"(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;
(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;
(3) the Commission will be a fact-finding body with powers to conduct
inquiry into complaints of violation of human rights;
(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;
(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;
(6) the Commission may make recommendations for the effective
implementation of the existing laws and treaties on human rights;
(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;
(8) the constitution of the State Human Rights Commission on the lines of
the National Commission."
8. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(2) read with
Section 29 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Kerala State
W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021
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:
(a) Illegible;
(b) vague, anonymous or pseudonymous;
(c) trivial or frivolous;
(d) barred under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 36 of the Act;
(e) allegations do not disclose involvement of any public servant;
(f) issue raised relates to civil disputes, service matters, labour
or industrial dispute;
(g) allegations do not raise any violation of human rights;
(h) If the matter raised is subjudice before a Court or Tribunal;
(i) the matter is covered by a Judicial verdict/decision of the National
Commission or a State Commission.
(j) Where the complaint is only a copy of the petition addressed to
some other authority.
(k) Where the petition is not signed or where the original petition is not
sent to the Commission;
(l) Where the matter raised is outside the purview of the Commission or
on any other ground.
9. As the matter pertains to service dispute, in the light of clause
(f) of Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission
(Procedure) Regulations, 2001, in our considered view, the Commission
W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021
ought to have dismissed Exhibit P5 complaint preferred by respondent
No.4 in limine.
10. 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.
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.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
S.Manikumar
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Shaji P.Chaly
Judge
vpv
W.P.(C)No.11837 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11837/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
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.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
