The Kerala State Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction over service matters, mandating dismissal of related complaints.

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 4th respondent before the Human Rights Commission, 3rd respondent herein, alleging nonpayment of back wages and other service benefits by the petitioner. By Exhibit P7, the 3rd respondent has allowed Exhibit P5. The 4th 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 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon service disputes. Exhibit P5 complaint also does not reveal any human rights violation. The 3rd respondent is only a fact finding body and can pass recommendatory orders for alleged human rights violation. However the 3rd 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 4th 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 4th 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 Cultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 16th December, 1966 stands substantially protected by the Constitution. However, there has been growing concern in the country and abroad about issues relating to human rights and it was having regard to the said aspect, changing social realities and the emerging trends in the nature of crime and violence, Government has been reviewing the existing laws, procedure and system of administration and transparency in them, and thus devising more efficient and effe