Case Title: National Small Industries Corporation Ltd V. National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Ors.
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes is not equivalent to a Civil Court. As a result, it cannot issue directions after deciding the parties' inter se rights, according to the Delhi High Court's Single Bench.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Respondent no. 1 (National Commission for Scheduled Castes), who ordered the petitioner to hold a review DPC, as well as the promotion of respondents no. 2 and 3 to the position of General Manager with the retrospective date and all associated benefits, have angered the petitioner, National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., who has come before this court to voice its displeasure.
The contention of the petitioner was that Articles 338(5) and (8) of the Indian Constitution were used as justification for Respondent No. 1 Commission's lack of jurisdiction to provide such orders. Additionally, All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India &Ors was used as support.
The contention of the respondent was that the Commission had complete authority to inquire into and keep tabs on the petitioner's business and those of similar organisations and agencies. After several disputes, they did not significantly contest that the Commission is just a recommendatory body and has no authority to provide orders to any department or organisation regarding how to behave in relation to service benefits.
The Bench observed that the Commission is only authorised to provide recommendations and not orders of the sort included in the contested order:
“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.”
By stating that the impugned decision issued by respondent no. 1 would only be regarded as a recommendation and not as a directive, the writ petition was partially granted. Respondents nos. 2 and 3 were instructed to file a complaint with a court or tribunal of their choosing if any unresolved grievances remained.