Kerala High Court
Mundiyappally Service Co-Operative ... vs The Kerala State Human Rights ... on 2 August, 2024
2024:KER:61364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024/11TH SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 37120 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
MUNDIYAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.A9,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MUDIYAPPALLY P.O,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV SHRI.M.V.S.NAMPOOTHIRY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TURBO PLUS TOWERS,
P.M.G JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
2 K.K. HARIDAS,
KACHIRA MALAYIL, KAVIYOOR P.O,
THIRUVALLA - 689 582.
BY ADVS.
A.DINESH RAO
P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT. RESHMI K.M
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.37120 of 2016
2024:KER:61364
2
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024)
The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, challenges Ext.P5
order passed by the Human Rights Commission directing them to
pay interest on the belated payment of gratuity. According to the
petitioner, the Human Rights Commission does not have
jurisdiction in a matter relating to the service condition of an
employee. The petitioner further pointed out that the 2nd
respondent should have initiated appropriate measures under the
Provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules
or approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972.
2. I have heard Sri. M.V.S.Nampoothiry, the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Dinesh Rao, the
learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
3. A reading of Ext.P5 proceedings shows that the Human
Rights Commission had referred to the provisions of Section 7 of
the Payment of Gratuity Act and proceeded to find that the
petitioner Bank denied the payment of gratuity to the 2nd
respondent and hence it was ordered that the Bank is liable to pay
2024:KER:61364
interest on the delayed payment.
4. It is admitted that the 2nd respondent is the employee of
the petitioner Bank. The service conditions of an employee of the
co-operative Bank are governed by the provisions of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act and the Rules. Added to the above, the
payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 also provides the mechanism for
claiming the Gratuity or raising grievance if any under the
provisions. The State of Kerala has framed the Kerala Payment of
Gratuity Rules, 1973 which provides the manner and method for
which the application for gratuity or any claim under the Act to be
raised before the Controlling Officer. With out exhausting these
alternate mechanism, it appears that the 2nd respondent has
approached the Human Rights Commission.
5. The Human Rights Commission which is constituted
under the provisions of the Human Rights Act would have only
limited jurisdiction in so far as service conditions of employees are
concern. The powers and functions of the Human Rights
Commission are clearly delineated in terms of the provisions of the
Act. Even assuming that the provisions of the Act would apply in
so far as the 1st respondent is concerned, the 1st respondent does
not have jurisdiction to pass the orders in the nature of Ext.P5.
2024:KER:61364
The powers of the Human Rights Commission are only
recommendatory in nature. It lacks powers to adjudicate the
dispute. Viewed in the above perspective, this Court finds that the
1st respondent clearly over stepped the jurisdiction in assuming
that the claim of the 2nd respondent was maintainable before him.
Hence, Ext.P5 order is clearly without jurisdiction.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 order stands
set aside. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
ADS
2024:KER:61364
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37120/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
30-03-2016.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER ISSUED BY
THE REGISTRAR, KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE
CHAIRPERSON.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ALLEGE TO HAVE
BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
17-09-2016
