IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7757 of 2026 Decided on: 18.05.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Human Rights Commission and Anr. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mr. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Virender Thakur, Deputy Manager Legal (Company Representative). For the Respondents: Mr. Vedhant Ranta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr.Vedhant Ranta, learned counsel, accept service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 . 2. In view of projected grievance of the petitioner, the pleadings of the writ petition and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent 2. Reply to the writ petition is also not required to be called from the appearing respondent. With consent 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 of learned counsel for the parties, matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the learned Himachal Pradesh Human Rights Commission, Shimla alleging discrimination, harassment and blatant violation of human rights as also the labour laws by the petitioner. Notice on the aforesaid complaint was issued to the petitioner on 18.10.2024. Petitioner appeared before the learned Commission on 18.11.2024 and sought time to file its response to the complaint. On the next date of listing i.e. , 01.03.2025, petitioner alongwith its reply filed an application for dismissal of the complaint in limine being not maintainable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Application was registered as CMA No.06/2025. Pursuant to the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Commission, respondent No.2 filed its response to CMA No. 06/2025. The matter came up for consideration on 29.03.2025. Petitioner’s application questioning maintainability of the complaint on account of lack of jurisdiction of the learned Commission was not decided, but the complainant was directed to file evidence 3 by way of affidavit under Section 13(1)(C) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (the Act in short). Respondent No.2 complied with the directions. The matter continued to be listed thereafter for completion of pleadings or furnishing of evidence by way of affidavits. On 02.05.2025, learned Commission ordered for listing of CMA No. 06/2025 alongwith original complaint. The case file reflects that matter thereafter was adjourned from time to time and on 03.03.2026, following order was passed:- “The Ld. Counsel for the respondents seeks time on the ground that the Ld. Senior Counsel is not feeling well: The petitioner stated that when she was appointed as Manager in the year 2006, Sh. Sunil Chaudhary was Deputy Manager and Sh. Ankur Aggarwal was Assistant Manager. She has stated that now Sh. Sunil Chaudhary & Sh. Ankur Aggarwal is holding the post of Plant Head and applicant still made to work on the lower post than Sh. Sunil Chaudhary & Sh. Ankur Aggarwal. Let the Chief People Officer to file a detailed affidavit for what reasons, the petitioner is discriminating vis-à-vis his junior and if the applicant is denied the benefit without any reason, they will rectify the position and file a detailed report on or before the next date of hearing. List on 19th May, 2026.” 4 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner makes out a grievance that petitioner’s original complaint in itself was not maintainable and petitioner has already raised its objections in the form of CMA No. 06/2025 questing the jurisdiction of learned Commission to take cognizance of the compliant. The said application is still pending adjudication. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, further grievance as raised by the complainant orally before the learned Commission, which has been taken cognizance in the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2026 was beyond the purview of the learned Commission. Respondent No.2-complainant has technically a raised a service /service condition related issue before the learned Commission. Such an issue could not have been raised by respondent No.2 much less on her oral complaint, therefore, the directions issued to the petitioner under order dated 03.03.2026 are not justified. Keeping in view the submissions urged by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that an application, challenging the maintainability of the complaint on jurisdictional issues (CMP No. 06/2025), is still pending consideration before the learned Commission, before taking cognizance of the oral complaint made by 5 respondent No.2 against the petitioner, relating to her service, it would have been appropriate to have called for response of the petitioner instead of assuming that respondent No.2 was being discriminated vis-à-vis her juniors and whether such oral complaint would fall within the domain of the learned Commission, more so, in view of Section 16 of the Act, which reads as under:- “16. Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be heard.—If, at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission— (a) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person; or (b) is of the opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry, it shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply where the credit of a witness is being impeached.” 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction that respondent No.1 shall take a fresh call upon the orders/directions issued under Order 03.03.2026 in accordance with law. Respondent No.1 may also consider the feasibility of adjudicating CMA No. 06/2025 in view of jurisdiction and limitation issues raised therein by the petitioner. 6 The writ petition to stand disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 18, 2026 Judge R.Atal