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

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 PETITIONER:

STEEL AND INDUSTRIAL FORGINGS LTD.

ATHANI P.O., THRISSUR, 680 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI RESPONDENTS:

1 THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PMG JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033

2 K.MAHESH MENON

4A, HOMELAND SEA GATE APARTMENTS, PT USHA ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 032.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

02.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2023 S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

Petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956; fully owned by the Government of Kerala; and is engaged in the manufacture of Industrial Forgings and Aero Space Equipments, has approached this court, being aggrieved by Exhibit-P3 order dated 19^th April, 2017, passed by the first respondent - Kerala State Human Rights Commission, at the instance of respondent No.2 herein in H.R.M.P.No.12824/2016.

2. Material on record discloses that before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, respondent No.1, Mr. K. Mahesh Menon - the 2^nd respondent herein, has sought for the following reliefs:-

“i) to call for the records leading to introduction of a dress code and set aside the same;

ii) to declare that the introduction of a dress code is illegal and gross human rights violation in the absence of a Government approval or any other statutory rules or Act in force.”

3. Short facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as under:-

3.1. According to the complainant / the 2^nd respondent herein, Steel and Industrial Forgings Ltd. (SIFL), the petitioner herein, is a company fully owned by the Government of Kerala, and he is an employee of the organization, working as Deputy Manager in HRD Department. He complains about the blatant Human Rights violations in the introduction of a dress code for officers, without the permission of the Government. There is no rhyme or reason nor any justification for the introduction of a dress code other than according to the whims and fancies of the respondent therein. The conduct, discipline and appeal rules applicable to employees, which are approved by the Government, do not stipulate any dress code. The Government, on 27.12.2012, have issued an order directing all the Government employees, including employees of Public Sectors, to use dress made of Khadi on Wednesdays. The order further directs all the employees to wear Khadi dress, as a promotional measure for Khadi industries. SIFL has introduced a dress code violating the Human Rights and Government orders.

3.2. Complainant has submitted that dress code for male officers in SIFL is rose colour shirt and black trousers. The material for the shirt and trousers are procured by inviting quotations, and the party, which quotes the lowest, becomes the successful bidder. The quality of this material is very low and only two pairs are given for stitching. After two or three washing and reuse, the clothing becomes shabby, wrinkled, dirty and frayed. Asking the complainant, who is working in the officer cadre in a Government owned company, to compulsorily dress up in such shabby and untidy manner, amounts to blatant human rights violation, since clothing conveys lifestyle and social status of a person in the society. The only requirement is neat and appropriate dressing for employees working in office. Moreover, since this is a policy decision, there is no Government approval for SIFL to introduce such a dress code in a Government organization. Also, this move violates the spirit of the earlier order issued by Government as applicable to the respondent’s company.

3.3. Complainant has further submitted that since SIFL has a factory which is registered under Factories Act, 1948, an employer can i