IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11837 OF 2021 PETITIONER:

DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL KOLLAM – 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

BY ADVS.

ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL S.SREEDEV RONY JOSE CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL SUZANNE KURIAN RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 033.

2 STATE OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 033.

3 KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695

033

4 C. RAMACHANDRAN NADUVATTHUCHERY, KULANGARATHODIYIL, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM 691 584.

SR. GP SRI.TEKCHAND FOR R1 & R2 ADV B.MOHANLAL FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2021 S.Manikumar, C.J.

Being aggrieved by Exhibit P5 complaint dated 03.10.2019 submitted by the respondents to the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and Exhibit P7 order dated 30.01.2020 in H.R.M.P.No.7247/11/11/19/KLM passed by the Human Rights Commission, instant writ petition is filed.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:

Petitioner challenges Exhibits P5 and P7. Exhibit P5 is a complaint lodged by the 4^th respondent before the Human Rights Commission, 3^rd respondent herein, alleging nonpayment of back wages and other service benefits by the petitioner. By Exhibit P7, the 3^rd respondent has allowed Exhibit P5. The 4^th respondent, an employee of the petitioner, was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence for more than 6 years. However, by Exhibit P3, he was re-appointed with a specific undertaking that he will not be entitled to back wages and other service benefits during the period, in which he was not in service. By Exhibit P4 the same was accepted. After more than 13 years, Exhibit P5 complaint was filed before the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon service disputes. Exhibit P5 complaint also does not reveal any human rights violation. The 3^rd respondent is only a fact finding body and can pass recommendatory orders for alleged human rights violation. However the 3^rd respondent has passed Exhibit P7 order in excess of its authority conferred under the statute. Hence this writ petition.

3. Defending the order passed by the Commission, Mr.B.Mohanlal, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent/complainant submitted that when the employer obtained signature of the respondent, by virtue of his advantageous position, denying backwages and other service benefits, respondent, being poor, had to approach the Commission vindicating his right.

4. According to the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, action of the employer amounts to human rights violation and thus, the Commission has every jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He prayed to sustain the order passed by the Commission in H.R.M.P.

No.7247/11/11/19/KLM.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain a complaint of this nature, relating to service ie., non-payment of wages during the period of out of employement, alone is considered, this court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the case. The purpose for which the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 was brought into force is discernible from the objects and reasons and on an analysis of the same it depicts the nature of the issues that are to be considered by a Commission constituted under the Act.

7. Statement of object and reasons of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 shows that the human rights embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and