Delhi High Court - Orders
State Trading Corporation Of India ... vs National Commission For Schedule ... on 12 November, 2020
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~A-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 8220/2020
STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF
INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate.
versus
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTES AND
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 12.11.2020 Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. W.P. (C) 8220/2020
1. At the outset Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that similar petition being W.P. (C) 4811/2020 is listed before this Court on 27.01.2021.
2. Issue notice to the Respondents by all permissible modes including electronic mode returnable on 27.01.2021.
C.M. No. 26632/2020
3. Issue notice to the Respondents by all permissible modes including electronic mode returnable on 27.01.2021.
4. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the directions issued in the impugned order dated 06.03.2020 are beyond the purview and jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 under Article 338 of Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel relies on the judgement of Supreme Court in All India Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 606, relevant para of which reads as under:-
"Interestingly, here, in clause 8 of Article 138, the words used are "the Commission shall... have all the powers of the Civil Court trying a suit." But the words "all the powers of a Civil Court" have to be exercised "while investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause 5". All the procedural powers of a Civil Court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only. The powers of a Civil Court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause 8 of Article 338 of the Constitution. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated March 4, 1993. The order itself being bad for want of jurisdiction, all other questions and considerations raised in the appeal are redundant The High Court was justified in taking the view it did. The appeal is dismissed. No costs."
6. Learned counsel also relies on a judgement of this Court in Maharaja Agrasen College & Anr. vs. Narendra Kumar & Ors. in W.P. (C) 521/2018 decided on 26.03.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"7. The controversy involved in the case is, ex facie, a service matter. It is now a settled position that the NCSC does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters. The Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees Welfare Association and Ors. v. Union of India &Ors.: 1996 Supp(8) SCR 295 had examined the powers of the NCSC and had held that although the NCSC has certain powers of a Court, it was not a Court and thus would not adjudicate disputes. The said view was also followed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Union of India v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Ann: W.P.(C) 2390/2012 decided on 28.05.2014 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. Manohar Lal and Anr: W.P.(C) 1613/2013 decided on 16.02.2016. This court had also considered the powers of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes under Article 338A of the Constitution of India, which is similarly worded as Article 338 of the Constitution of India.
8. The learned counsel for NCSC submits that the impugned order is only a recommendation and is not an order. The said contention is unpersuasive as the plain reading of the operative part of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has been called upon to submit an action taken report. Clearly, NCSC is insisting on the implementation of its recommendations. Even, otherwise the tenor of the impugned order clearly indicates that it is an order although couched as a recommendation, it is in substance, an order."
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner this Court is of the prima facie view that the directions issued by Respondent No.1 are beyond its jurisdiction, as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the Commission does not have powers to issue directions relating to service matters.
8. In view of the above operation of the impugned order dated 06.03.2020 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
JYOTI SINGH, J NOVEMBER 12, 2020/yo