Karnataka HC Quashes Caste Discrimination Case By National SC/ST Commission Against Educational Institution Over Complaint By Employee

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, against the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Mysore Education Society, which runs Mysore Education Society (MES) College at Malleswaram, Bengaluru, on a complaint filed by a computer technician working with it alleging harassment on the grounds that he belongs to a scheduled caste.Justice M Nagaprasanna allowing the petition it said “The first respondent (P Babu) seeks leave of two years; it is granted, his appointment is saved, he is taken back, since the vacancy had already been filled and is transferred four kilometers away to another Institution of the same Society, in terms of the conditions of employment which had been signed by the first respondent, with eyes wide open. With the circumstances being thus, the Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint, which on the face of it, is a misuse of the provisions of the Act, projecting abuse and imaginary atrocity. A palpable service dispute is projected as an atrocity dispute.” The petitioners had approached the court after the Commission taking cognizance of the complaint directed the Commissioner of Police to investigate into the matter and submit a report upon the allegations made by the first respondent. The Commissioner is said to have sent a communication to all the teachers and staff of the Institute to give their statement and also furnish their detailed reply and a rejoinder to the response submitted by the first respondent. The petitioners contended that Babu had accepted the transfer to another college of the institute by expressing his gratitude in 2023, for having taken him back to the duties after his long leave, later he went before the Commission in 2024 and alleged harassment or atrocity against the petitioners. The Commission, without jurisdiction to entertain a service dispute, takes up the cause, initiates proceedings and creates havoc in the Institution. Thus, all proceedings are without jurisdiction and should be annulled. The respondents opposed the plea, saying that the institution has abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste when he goes to report to duties. Moreover, it is the matter where the Commission will have to continue the proceedings as it cannot be said that the proceedings are without jurisdiction.Findings: The bench referred to the employment agreement entered between the Institute and Babu and then noted that Babu has signed an agreement, which clearly indicates that the employee would be liable to work in inter-Institutional transfers within the MES group of institutions.Noting that the complaint would indicate grievances of 10 years vintage being projected, without uttering a word about all of that, at any time earlier. It said “Therefore, nothing can be farther from truth. The petitioners submit their reply to the Commission; no action is taken on the reply and the proceedings go on.” Then the court referred to Article 338 of the Constitution and said “The duties of the Commission are to investigate and monitor all matters relating to safeguards provided for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights and safeguards of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. One major change that was brought about was that it vested the Commission with all the powers of a civil Court trying a suit while investigating any matter referred to it under sub clause (a) or enquiring into any complaint referred it under sub clause (b) of Clause (5) of Article 338.” Following which it said “The powers conferred do not contemplate that the Commission can examine matters like a civil Court and adjudicate dispute and pronounce its decision either interim or final.” It added “The procedure that is conferred under Article 338 cannot be confused to be conferring a substantive power akin to that of a civil Court or a Tribunal which are adjudicating bodies of disputes of citizens.” Then it held, “In the light of the mandate permitted to the Commission, by the Constitution of India and its interpretation by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments, what would unmistakably emerge is, the absence of jurisdiction of the Commission in entertaining a service dispute, of the kind in the case at hand, between an employer and an employee.” It observed that “Though there is no order passed by the Commission directing a particular act to be done, the very proceeding has created ripples in the Institution. There is neither atrocity nor abuses that are hurled against the first respondent. It is a canard presented by the employee against the employer before the Commission.” Then, the bench said, “The proceedings before the Commission suffering from want of jurisdiction, in the peculiar facts of the case, need to be obliterated.” Appearance: Advocate Pradeep S. Sawkar, for petitioners.Advocate Nagendra B, for respondent No.1. Advocate...

Karnataka HC Quashes Caste Discrimination Case By National SC/ST Commission Against Educational Institution Over Complaint By Employee

Mustafa Plumber

Tags