State Human Rights Commission Cannot Entertain Service Matters: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain service matters. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman relied upon the decisions in Malabar Cements Ltd. (M/s.) v. K. Baburajan & Ors. (2019), and District Tourism Promotion Council, represented by its Secretary v....
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain service matters.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman relied upon the decisions in Malabar Cements Ltd. (M/s.) v. K. Baburajan & Ors. (2019), and District Tourism Promotion Council, represented by its Secretary v. State of Kerala represented by the Secretary & Ors. (2021), both of which had held that, in terms of Regulation 17(f) of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001, the Commission may dismiss in limine a complaint, if the issue pertains to service matters.
As per the factual matrix, the 2nd respondent had filed a petition before the SHRC seeking revision of pay of guest lecturers of IHRD College. Subsequently, the Commission passed an interim order dated November 30, 2018, directing the Director, IHRD (petitioner herein), to take steps to grant the revised salary notified by the Government as per the recommendation of the 10th Pay Commission to the IHRD workers and guest lecturers.
It is challenging the said interim order that the present writ petition had been filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Deepu Thankan, submitted that as per Regulation 17(f), it has been clearly stipulated that issues pertaining to civil dispute, service matter, labour or industrial disputes are not maintainable before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, and the Commission ought not to have considered the complaint at the very first instance. It was pointed out that Regulation 38 vests the Commission with the power of summons, however, in the instant case, the Commission had passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner or any other concerned authority. Additionally, it was argued that the Commission, while passing the impugned order, also failed to understand the fact that the benefits under the 10th Pay Commission could not be granted to the employees and guest lectures of the petitioner's institutions with immediate effect, since the State Government had not even taken a decision for implementation of the benefits under the 10th Pay Commission in the petitioner's institutions. "Moreover, the benefits under the 9th Pay Revision has also not yet completely implemented in the petitioner’s institution due to lack of funds. These aspects were not considered by the Human Rights Commission," the counsel argued.
It is in this context that the Court referred to the aforementioned decisions in Malabar Cements Ltd. (2019), and District Tourism Promotion Council (2021), to ascertain that the Commission may dismiss complaints pertaining to service matters in limine.
"That apart, reading of the order dated 30.11.2018 indicates that by way of the interim order, the main relief sought for in the complaint has been issued. Notwithstanding the jurisdiction of Kerala State Human Rights Commission in entertaining a complaint, it is well settled that interim order should not be issued in the guise of the main relief itself," the Court added.
It thus set aside the impugned order of the SHRC on these grounds.
Case Title: The Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 95