The State Human Rights Commission cannot entertain complaints that are essentially service or labour disputes, as specifically prohibited under Rule 9 of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1997.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari thereby call for the records of the 1st respondent in order dated 30.03.2021 in SHRC No.11811 of 2019 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by N.DILIP KUMAR, J.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent/State Human Rights Commission in Case No. 11811 of 2019 dated 30th March 2021, whereunder, upon concluding that there is violation of human rights, the Government is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and to recover the same from the respondents 1 and 2 before the State Human Rights Commission. There is a further direction to the Government to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent in accordance with the service rules.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that he was working as a Superintendent in the office of the Mahalir Thittam, Madurai and he was later promoted as an Assistant Project Officer in 2016 and the accusations levelled even in the Human Rights Commission concern disputes arising in the discharge of services and they are per se not entertainable by the State Human Rights Commission.

3. The learned Counsel for the State Human Rights Commission would submit that because there were accusations in the place of employment, the complaint was entertained and an order has been rightly arrived at. He therefore prays that the order warrants no interference.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1997, specifically prescribes under Rule 9 with regard to the complaints that are not ordinarily entertainable. One of the criteria for not entertaining a complaint is with regard to matters relating to service disputes or labour disputes or industrial disputes. And in the present case, a perusal of the complaint categorically demonstrates that the petitioner is alleging harassment against her superior officers and co-employees and other than the bald and vague assertion of the complainant, no other material or substantial documents are produced even before the State Human Rights Commission. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant as against the petitioner, that he directed the complainant and two other members to sign the attendance register at Thirupparankundram instead of Simmakkal, Madurai Scheme. Except for this allegation, no other allegation was made against the petitioner. The complaint itself is vague. It is not maintainable. Even then, the State Human Rights Commission entertained the complaint and ordered compensation, which is not sustainable.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order issued by the State Human Rights Commission is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.