The State Of Bihar And Anr vs The Bihar Human Right Commission ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4504 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18326 of 2016
     ======================================================

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Bihar Human Right Commission, through its Secretary, 9, Bailey Road, Patna

2. The Assistant Registrar, Bihar Human Right Commission, 9, Bailey Road, Patna

3. Tarun Kumar Jha C/o Shambhu Nath Jha Mohalla- Jyotipuram Colony, Mourya Path, Khejpura, P.O. Veterinary College, District Patna 14

4. The Director, B.S.A. Corporation Limited, 18/20 Sukhbani Fortune, Marwadi Road, Pimpri, Pune 411018 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance:

     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :     Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 12-09-2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed for

quashing the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the

Chairperson, State Human Rights Commission, Patna

in File No. 1791 of 2016.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the

petitioners, are that an agreement dated 11.11.2014

was executed in between the Urban Development

and Housing Department, Government of Bihar,

Patna and B.S.A. Corporation Limited for supplying Patna High Court CWJC No.18326 of 2016 dt.12-09-2023

manpower on contract basis for various posts in the

Urban Local Bodies and District Urban Development

Agencies, across the State of Bihar. It is the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners

that for some time the work of the private agency

i.e. B.S.A. Corporation Limited had been satisfactory,

however, subsequently there were lot of complaints

with regard to irregularities being committed in

supply of manpower, hence a Three Men Committee

was constituted to enquire into the matter. The said

Three Men Committee had then submitted a joint

enquiry report dated 16.09.2016, wherein as far as

the B.S.A. Corporation Limited, Pune is concerned, it

was observed that as per the agreement the said

agency has to first make payment to the employees

supplied by it, whereafter it is required to submit

bills and then payment is to be made by the Urban

Development & Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar,

Patna.

3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners that the contract of the

aforesaid B.S.A. Corporation Limited has to come an

end on 31.10.2015 and in case the said company Patna High Court CWJC No.18326 of 2016 dt.12-09-2023

has any claim, it has to either invoke clause 9.2 of

the Agreement i.e the dispute settlement clause or

the dispute resolution clause, contained in "General

conditions of contract" or take recourse to such

remedies as are otherwise available under the law

for enforcement of the terms and conditions of the

Agreement in question. It is further submitted that

manpower was supplied by the aforesaid B.S.A.

Corporation Limited on a purely contractual basis

and such employees working at various locations in

the State of Bihar, supplied by the said company

were to be paid wages by the said company, thus in

case the employees have any claim with regard to

unpaid wages, the claim would lie as against the

said company and not against the petitioners

inasmuch as they are not the employees of the State

Government but that of the aforesaid company.

Nonetheless, it is submitted that the respondent no.

3 had approached the State Human Rights

Commission, Patna with a prayer that since his

salary for the period April, 2015 upto 09.03.2016

has not been paid by the petitioners, they be

directed to pay the same. Consequently, the Patna High Court CWJC No.18326 of 2016 dt.12-09-2023

Chairperson, State Human Rights Commission has

passed the impugned order dt. 21.09.2016 directing

the petitioners to pay the unpaid salary to

respondent no. 3 and other similarly situated

persons along with interest @ 10 % per annum.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

referred to Regulation 9 of the National Human

Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations, 1994'),

which is reproduced herein below:-

                 "9.         Complaints                not    ordinarily
                 entertainable:-The                    Commission      may

dismiss in limini complaints of the following nature:-

(i)illegible;

(ii)vague, anonymous or pseudonymous;

(iii)trivial or frivolous;

(iv) barred under section 36(1) of the Act;

(v) barred under section 36(2) of the Act;

(vi) allegation is not against any public servant;

(vii) the issue raised relates to civil dispute, such as property rights, contractual obligations & the like;

(viii) the issue raised relates to service matters;

(ix) the issue raised relates to labour/industrial disputes;

Patna High Court CWJC No.18326 of 2016 dt.12-09-2023

(x) allegations do not make out any specific violation of human rights;

                    (xi) matter is               sub-judice   before      a
                    Court/Tribunal;

(xii) matter is covered by a judicial verdict/decision of the Commission;

(xiii) where it is only a copy of the complaint addressed to some other authority;

(xiv) the matter is outside the purview of the Commission on any other ground."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

thus submitted that Regulation 9 of the Regulations

1994, as aforesaid, would demonstrate that issues

relating to contractual obligations as also pertaining

to service matters/labour and industrial disputes

matters do not lie within the domain of the Human

Rights Commission and such complaints are required

to be dismissed in limine. The learned counsel for

the petitioners has next submitted that the

respondent no. 3 being an employee of the aforesaid

B.S.A. Corporation Limited has got no locus to claim

any unpaid salary from the petitioners.

6. Though the learned counsel for the respondent

no. 3 has been continuously absent on previous

occasions and today also he is not present, however, Patna High Court CWJC No.18326 of 2016 dt.12-09-2023

this Court finds that a counter affidavit has been

filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 from which it

is apparent that the respondent no. 3 has failed to

demonstrate that he is an employee of the State

Government and on the contrary admittedly he is a

contractual employee of the aforesaid company in

question. Though reliance has been placed on a

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Chameli Singh & Others vs State of U.P.

& Another, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 549,

however, the same is not applicable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the

same deals with the right of a person to adequate

standard of living, which is required to be addressed

by the respective Governments. Yet, another

judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

respondent no. 3 is the one rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Harjinder Singh vs

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation,

reported in (2010) 3 SCC 192, however, the same

is also distinguishable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the

same deals with legality of the award rendered by Patna High Court CWJC No.18326 of 2016 dt.12-09-2023

the Labour Court, awarding reinstatement with

payment of compensation.

7. Having heard the present case for a

considerable time and having gone through the

records, this Court finds that the respondent no. 3 is

seeking enforcement of contractual obligations and

moreover, there is no master and servant

relationship in between the petitioners and the

respondent no. 3, hence he has no legal right to

raise a claim qua the petitioners and at best he

could have agitated his grievances as against the

aforesaid company by taking recourse to appropriate

remedies available under the law. It is apparent from

a bare reading of Regulation 9 of the Regulations,

1994, as reproduced herein above in the preceding

paragraph, that even otherwise the claim raised by

the respondent no. 3 before the State Human Rights

Commission, Patna regarding payment of wages

does not lie within the domain of the State Human

Rights Commission and the Commission ought to

have dismissed the complaint filed by the

respondent no. 3 in limine, nonetheless, it has Patna High Court CWJC No.18326 of 2016 dt.12-09-2023

passed an order directing the petitioners to make

payment of the unpaid salary of the respondent no.

3 along with interest @ 10 per cent per annum,

which is not only perverse and illegal but also

contrary to Regulation 9 of the Regulations, 1994,

hence the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the

Chairperson, State Human Rights Commission, Patna

is not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus is set

aside, qua the respondent no. 3.

8. The writ petition stands allowed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          19.09.2023
Transmission Date       N/A