1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9365 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9365 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.9365 OF 2007 Maharashtra State Road Trasport Corporation, Bombay. .. Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. G.S. Hegde i/by G.S. Hegde & Associates for Petitioner. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP, for Respondent No. 1. Mr. P.A. Saratkar for Respondent no. 2. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 17TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 17TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 17TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C. . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Reply of respondent no. 2 is taken on record. 3. This petition challenges the order passed by the Member, State Human Rights Commission on 5.12.2007. 2 By this order, the Member has directed that the domestic enquiry which was initiated by the petitioner against respondent no. 2, who is an employee of the petitioner, should be stayed during the pendency of the enquiry before the Commission. 4. The application made by respondent no. 2 to the Human Rights Commission has, in our opinion, wrongly been entertained by the Commission. The case of the respondent no. 2 was that the enquiry officer appointed by the petitioner for inquiring into certain acts of misconduct allegedly committed by respondent no. 2, was not changed as requested by respondent no. 2 and, therefore, his human rights were violated. 5. In our opinion, this is certainly not a violation of human rights. Section 2 (d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines "human rights" as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. The functions and powers of the Human Rights Commission are prescribed in Section 12 of the Act and the powers of the Commission have been detailed in Section 13. On a perusal of these provisions of law, we do not find that the contention of Respondent No. 2 is sustainable. 6. The contention of the respondent no. 2 in 3 reply to the petition is that the Commission has merely instituted an enquiry into the matter and, therefore, this Court should not interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, this submission deserves to be rejected as the Commission does not have any jurisdiction to entertain matters pertaining to service of an employee with his employer when there are specific service rules which have been framed governing the service conditions of the employees of the petitioner. 7. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the order impugned in this petition. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. NO order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)