Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15594
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, J, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
N.R.CITY KSREEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1116 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: SRI.K.P.HARISH, SMT.M.P.MARY
The Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction to order payment of gratuity since such disputes fall under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which governs employee entitlements post-employment.
Headnote:(A) Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations - 2001 - Regulation 17 - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - A society challenged an order of the Human Rights Commission directing disbursement of gratuity to a deceased employee's legal heir, asserting jurisdictional issues of the Commission over service matters - The court held that the Commission's jurisdiction does not extend to service complaints regarding gratuity, which is governed by statutory provisions - The Commission's order was quashed, allowing the claimant to approach the controlling authority under the Gratuity Act. (Paras 3, 14, 25)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Court examined the limits of the Human Rights Commission’s jurisdiction concerning service disputes, highlighting the need for statutory compliance in adjudicating gratuity claims. (Paras 5, 12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of the case and commission's findings on financial irregularities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments surrounding the commission's jurisdiction over service matters. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's discussion on the legal frameworks governing gratuity. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. the ruling on the jurisdiction issue and the implications for the case. (Para 24) |
| 5. final decision to allow the writ petition. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY, J
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a Society, challenging Exhibit P7 order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission dated 4th November, 2020 directing the Secretary of the petitioner Society to disburse the eligible benefits of one late Sudhakaran who died on 16.05.2013 while in service of the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt a copy of the order. The Director of the Diary Development Department was further directed to ensure that the benefits are received by the 4th respondent in time.
2. According to the petitioner, petitioner was never made a party in the proceedings before the Human Rights Commission and in fact, the Human Rights Commission has relied upon the report of the Director of Diary Development Department that husband of the 4th respondent committed suicide on 16.5.2013 while working as Lab Assistant with the petitioner Society. It was also noted that a financial irregularity of Rs.7,23,191/- surfaced in the Society during the year 2012-2013 and late Sudhakaran, Lab Assistant, and K.P.Johny, the Procurement Assistant, were responsible for the irregularity as stated by the Secretary.
3. But on a perusal of the bank transaction records, it was found that Smt.Sheela.P.K. - Secretary, was on duty at that time and the irregularity was committed using the jointly signed cheques of the President and Secretary of the Society and it was because of the lapse of the Secretary in discharging the duty, the financial irregularity has taken place in the Society and hence, the entire loss is to be recovered from the Secretary of the Society as the Chief Executive Officer of the Society, on the basis of a letter issued by the Deputy Director of the Diary Development Department, Idukki to the President of the Society on 19.3.2014. It was also found from the report that, against the direction of the Deputy Director, Smt.Sheela.P.K. approached the High Court with W.P.(C) No.11600/2014 and a stay was obtained on 6.5.2014 from enforcing the order of the Deputy Director. However, the Commission found that there was no prima facie records to show that late Sudhakaran committed financial irregularity and there is no restriction imposed by the High Court in paying the benefits due to late Sudhakaran. That apart, it was also noted, a crime was registered at Rajakkad Police Station against the financial irregularities. It was also noted by the Commission that Smt.Sheela.P.K., Secretary of the Society, was held responsible.
4. It seems the Deputy Director had also reported that late Sudhakaran and another person had taken cheque leaves of the Society and misappropriated the funds. Anyhow, the Commission has found that nothing is mentioned in the report about the initiation of proceedings for recovering the misappropriated amount from the properties of late Sudhakaran, though the Secretary has raised allegations against late Sudhakaran. It was thereupon that the directions as pointed out above were issued by the Commission to the petitioner.
5. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the dispute raised by the 4th respondent in Exhibit P1 complaint is a service matter/labour dispute with respect to non-payment of gratuity of her late husband by the petitioner society and therefore, by virtue of section 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations – 2001, the Commission had no jurisdiction to interfere in the dispute and direct the petitioner
