Karnataka High Court Highlights Absence Of Jurisdiction Of National Commission For SCs in Entertaining Employer-Employee Disputes, Quashes Caste Based Harassment Case
The Secretary and Chief Executive of the Mysore Education Society (MES), which runs MES College, approached the Karnataka High Court calling in question the proceedings before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.
While highlighting the absence of jurisdiction of the National Commission for Scheduled Caste in entertaining service disputes between an employer and an employee, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a caste based discrimination case initiated at the instance of a Computer Technician against a College.
The petitioners - the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Mysore Education Society (MES), which runs MES College at Malleswaram, Bengaluru approached the Court calling in question the proceedings before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (Commission).
The Single Bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna said, “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.”
Advocate Pradeep S. Sawkar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate B. Nagendra represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Petitioner Society was established in the year 1956, having its foot on a diverse array of schools and colleges. The first respondent joins the MES Degree College, Malleswaram, which is one of the Institutions run by the first petitioner. He joined as Computer Technician in 2008. When things stood thus, the first respondent communicated to the Principal of MES College, requesting the sanction of two years' leave. The petitioner considering the request granted leave as sought for and found a replacement for his post of Computer Technician. Since the first respondent was on leave for more than one year and another person was already appointed, the first respondent was transferred to the MES Institute of Management, Rajajinagar, which was also an Institution run by MES. A relieving order was issued. The first respondent accepting the order reported the duties to the MES Institute of Management, and the person who had replaced the first respondent continued as a Computer Technician in MES Degree College, Malleswaram.
The Petitioners received a notice in the year 2024 from the second respondent Commission, enclosing a complaint alleging that the first respondent was being harassed on the ground that he belonged to a scheduled caste. The Commissioner sent a communication to all the teachers and staff of the petitioners to give their statement.. When the proceedings were on, the petitioners approached the Court, calling in question the same, contending that the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that after the 65th amendment to Article 338 of the Constitution of India, the duties of the Commission were to investigate and monitor all matters relating to safeguards provided for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and enquire into specific complaints concerning deprivation of rights and safeguards of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. One major change that was brought about in the 65th amendment to Article 338 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 subclause (b) of Clause (5) of Article 338.
“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 said while further adding, “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.”
“Though there is no order passed by the Commission directing a particular act to be done, the very proceeding has created ripples on 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”, it stated.
The High Court found that the first respondent sought leave of two years, which was granted. His appointment was saved, and he was taken back. Since the vacancy had already been filled and he wastransferred 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, the Bench held, “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. As observed hereinabove, a palpable service dispute, is projected as an atrocity dispute.”
Thus, quashing the proceedings before the Commission, the Bench allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: The Mysore Education Society v. Sri Babu P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:13035)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Pradeep S. Sawkar
Respondent: Advocates B. Nagendra, B.S.Venkatanaranaya
