Telangana High Court
M/S. Irep Dhan Pvt Ltd vs The Telangana State Human Rights ... on 27 October, 2021
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.899 of 2021
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner company, a private limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, being aggrieved by the notice issued by the Telangana State Human Rights Commission ('the Commission', for brevity), dated 29.12.2020.
The facts of the case reveal that the respondent before this Court, who is an employee of the petitioner company, is having some service dispute with the petitioner company and in respect of service dispute, he has preferred a complaint under Section 12(a)(i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (for short, the Act).
Section 12 of the Act reads as under:-
"12. Functions of the Commission.--The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:--
(a) inquire, suo-motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf or on a direction or order of any court, into complaint of--
(i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or
(ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant;2
(b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court;
(c) visit, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any jail or other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection, for the study of the living conditions of the inmates thereof and make recommendations thereon to the Government;
(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;
(e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures;
(f) study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation;
(g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights;
(h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means;
(i) encourage the efforts of non-governmental organisation and institutions working in the field of human rights;
(j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights."
The Commission, in respect of service dispute, has issued a notice to the employer and the employer, being aggrieved by the issuance of the notice, has approached this Court.
3
Learned counsel for the respondent has argued before this Court that even though it is a service dispute, non-issuance of service-cum-relieving order amounts to violation of human rights and, therefore, he has approached the Commission.
This Court has carefully gone through the Act. The Act provides for a remedy in case of violation of human rights and a service dispute may also involve violation of human rights. However, for service disputes, there are forums available like Industrial Court, High Court, Administrative Tribunals and in case it is held that the Human Rights Commission is also having jurisdiction in respect of service disputes, the Human Rights Commission shall start deciding all service matters. The object of the Act is certainly not for establishment of a Commission to decide the service disputes.
The Supreme Court in the case of N.C.Dhoundial v. Union of India1 in paragraph 14 has held as under:
"We cannot endorse the view of the Commission. The Commission which is an unique expert body is, no doubt, entrusted with a very important function of protecting the human rights, but, it is needless to point out that the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The 1 AIR 2004 SC 1272 : (2004) 2 SCC 579 4 Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. Of course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act. The Commission is one of the fora which can redress the grievances arising out of the violations of human rights. Even if it is not in a position to take up the enquiry and to afford redressal on account of certain statutory fetters or handicaps, the aggrieved persons are not without other remedies. The assumption underlying the observation in the concluding passage extracted above proceeds on an incorrect premise that the person wronged by violation of human rights would be left without remedy if the Commission does not take up the matter."
The Commission is entrusted with an important function of protecting the human rights and it does not have unlimited jurisdiction, as is being exercised in respect of service dispute in the present case, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is purely a service dispute, the impugned notices issued by the Commission are hereby quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to take recourse to the other remedies under the law.
5
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. The miscellaneous applications pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 27.10.2021 vs