Aastha Thakur
Published on August 01, 2022 at 18:16 IST
While hearing application filed by National Small Industries Corp. Ltd., Delhi High Court ruled that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes has no vested powers to issue directions after deciding the inter se rights of the parties, like a civil court.
The matter was heard by Justice Rekha, she after observing facts of the case, opined that, “Merely because the Commission, for the purpose of carrying out investigations or enquiring into any complaint, has the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and, therefore, is entitled to issue directions inter alia for enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the country, receiving evidence on affidavits, cannot imply that the Commission is equivalent to a Civil Court or that it can like a Civil Court issue directions after deciding the inter se rights of the parties.”
The petitioner’s case was that the Commission had, while passing the impugned order, has went beyond there jurisdictional arena to issue directions in order to grant retrospective promotion to respondents no.2 and 3 with all consequential benefits. It was argued that the Commission has no authority to issue such directions.
The Court relied on judgement passed by the Apex Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC And ST Employees’ Welfare Association and Ors v. Union of India and Ors, wherein it was held that the powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, cannot be exercised by the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from Article 338(8) of the Constitution.
The Court concluded the matter in favour of petitioner and held that, “In the light of the aforesaid it is evident that the Commission can only make recommendations and not issue any directions of the nature as issued vide the impugned order.”
It further also added that, “In the present case, the directions issued by the Commission for granting retrospective promotion to respondent no.2 and 3 were clearly beyond the powers of the Commission. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the respondent no.1 Commission, had while issuing a direction that the respondent nos.2 and 3 be granted promotion from a retrospective date and be paid all consequential benefits, overstepped its jurisdiction.”
However, the Court also note that the Commission has authority as far as to give recommendations. Hence, the impugned order given by Commission will only be treated as recommendations not directions.