Steel and Industrial Forgings Ltd. v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission and K. Mahesh Menon

# 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: WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 2 :: ## 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:- WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 3 :: 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 WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 4 :: 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 introduce dress code for health and safety reasons inside the factory. The Factories Act, 1948, stipulates to provide adequate safety equipments to employees employed in the factory. Such stipulation is not applicable to employees working WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 5 :: in the office, who are not covered under the Factories Act and Regulations. Safety Uniforms are provided to employees employed in the factory, else their dress gets dirtied or oiled due to the components used in the factory. But introduction of a dress code for employees working inside the office infringes Article 25 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). We consider human and workplace rights as articulated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work to be inviolable. Dignity is the essence of Human Rights. Any comprehension of Human Right will assure dignity to every human being in the world. This emphasis on dignity is set out in the preamble to Constitution of India and Charter of UDHR as a core value. 3.4. Complainant has also pointed out that Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, envisages the Right to equality and nondiscrimination. SIFL has introduced the dress code in a discriminatory manner that some employees are exempted from having a dress code based on the gender, while some other employees of the same gender are compelled to follow the dress code, which is another constitutional violation. WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 6 :: ## 4. Considering the averments in the complaint, Human Rights Commission, in HRMP No. 12824 of 2016 dated ## 19.04.2017, has passed the following order:- “In view of the contention raised by the petitioner the following direction are given to the to the respondent for making the company more disciplined thereby keeping decorum of the company. All the staff in the company (male and female officers) should be given five pairs of uniforms with quality material and stitching charges by the respondent so that they can wear in the factory and factory premises, neatly and keeping the discipline and decorum of the factory. The entire staffs shall also be given washing allowances regularly.” 5. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed by M/s. Steel and Industrial Forgings Ltd., the respondent therein, seeking to quash Exhibit-P3 to the extent it directs that all the staff of the petitioner company shall be given five pairs of uniform with stitching charges and washing allowance by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. 6. Record of proceedings shows that while entertaining the writ petition, a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, on 13.11.2017, has granted interim stay of the order impugned. 7. Though notice was served on the second respondent, there is no appearance for him, either in person or through WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 7 :: counsel. Therefore, we deem it fit to dispose of the writ petition on its merit. 8. Impugned order is challenged on the grounds, inter alia, that the directions given by the first respondent are beyond the scope of Exhibit-P1 petition filed by the second respondent, an individual employee. 9. It is submitted that Exhibit-P3 order dated 19.04.2017, passed by the 1[st] respondent to the extent it directs that all the staff of the company shall be given five pairs of uniform with stitching charges and washing allowance, is illegal. 10. Contentions are also made by Mr.Saji Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner that in several other public sector undertakings, in the State and other departments, employers are given only two sets of uniform and that service benefits and perquisites given by the employers are based on several factors and after negotiations with the employees and their unions. Therefore, Kerala State Human Rights Commission cannot issue any positive direction to issue five sets of uniforms to all the staff. 11. Further contention has been made that the workers of the petitioner company are drawing an average salary of WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 8 :: Rs.35,000/- per month and the Executives are drawing an average salary of Rs.45,000/- apart from other perquisites. There is no financial difficulty for the employees to buy additional pairs of uniform, if they need. Finally, Mr.Saji Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2/complainant, is no longer in service. 12. Inviting our attention to the judgment of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in Malabar Cements Limited v. K. Baburajan and others [2019 (4) KHC 131], Mr. Saji Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Kerala State Human Rights Commission, a statutory body, can redress grievances arising out of violations of human rights. The Commission has no authority or jurisdiction to issue direction against the terms of the binding conciliation settlement, which is in force for the last more than three decades. 13. Attention of this court was also invited to paragraphs 15 and 18 of the abovesaid judgment, which are reproduced hereunder: “15. The Commission is a statutory body created under the Act. It does not have any plenary or prerogative powers like the High Court. It exercises only statutory powers. The Commission is, no doubt, entrusted with the very important function of protecting human rights. But the Commission WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 9 :: has no unlimited jurisdiction. It cannot exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The Commission, which is the creature of a statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. The Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act. The Commission is one of the fora which can redress grievances arising out of violations of human rights. It is to be remembered that, even if the Commission is not in a position to enquire into a complaint and to afford redressal on account of statutory fetters or handicaps, the aggrieved persons are not without other remedies (See Dhoundial v. Union of India, 2004 KHC 768: AIR 2004 SC 1272 : 2004 (2) KLT SN 32: 2004 (2) SCC 579). ……………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………… 18. At this juncture, we may take note of Regulation 17 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 which deals with maintainability of complaints before the Commission. Regulation 17 states that, the Commission may dismiss in limine complaints of the nature enumerated in clauses (a) to (l). Clause (f) of Regulation 17 provides that, the Commission may dismiss in limine, complaints wherein the issue raised relates to civil disputes, service matters, labour or industrial dispute. Clause (i) of Regulation 17 provides that, the Commission may dismiss in limine complaints, if the matter is covered by a Judicial verdict / decision of the National Commission or a State Commission. Similarly, going by clause (l), the Commission may dismiss the complaints in limine, where the matter raised is outside the purview of the Commission or on any other ground.” 14. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 15. While contending that the writ petitioner cannot insist for a dress code, complainant/2[nd] respondent has only sought for WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 10 :: a relief to call for the records relating to introduction of dress code and to set aside the same. Before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, 1[st] respondent herein, he has further sought for a declaration that introduction of dress code is illegal and gross violation of human rights, in the absence of any approval from the Government or other statutory authorities. 16. As rightly contended by Mr. Saji Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner, grant of salary, service benefits and perquisites are purely based on several factors and judicial notice can be taken that dress code is being followed in several public sector companies, as well as private institutions. 17. It can be seen from the impugned order in HRMP No.12824 of 2016 dated 19.04.2017 that, after considering the rival submissions, Kerala State Human Rights Commission has come to the conclusion that insisting of dress code, within factory premises of the company, cannot be considered as a human right violation. That can only provide sense of discipline among the office. 18. Having regard to the limited reliefs sought for in the complaint to call for the records leading to the introduction of a dress code and set aside the same and to declare that the same WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 11 :: as illegal and having said that dress code in factory only provide a sense of discipline and that the same cannot be considered as a human rights violation, travelling beyond the scope of the prayer in the complaint, Kerala State Human Rights Commission has directed the writ petitioner/company to provide five pairs of uniforms with quality materials and that stitching charges to be given by the respondent. Such directions are beyond the scope of the complaint and, as rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, we do so. In the result, writ petition is allowed. sd/- S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE jesxxx WP(C) NO. 36205 OF 2017 :: 12 :: ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 3/12/2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 18/2/2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/4/2017 IN H.R.M.P.NO.12824/2016 OF THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. // True Copy // P.S. to Judge