Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The first three petitioners are persons in the management of A.J. Group of Institutions. The 4th petitioner is the Principal of an English Medium Residential Public School under the said management. They have approached this Court challenging Ext. P1 notice and seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from proceeding further and not to proceed with the enquiry contemplated as per Ext. P1 or similar notices. Ext. P1 is a summons issued under S.15 of the Kerala Women's Commission Act, 1990 to the 2nd petitioner. Similar notices are issued to other petitioners as well. The petitioners submit that the Kerala Women's Commission Act, 1990 enables the Women's Commission to enquire the unfair practices affecting women and to recommend measures and action to be taken based on the report of the enquiry. They submit that by Ext. P1 they are "summoned to appear as witnesses and answer allegations and the notice itself states that the petitioners may be prosecuted under Ss.17 & 18". They submit that, they had appeared pursuant to the notices and explained the Commission the real situation. They allege that "the Director of the Commission, respondent No. 2 was adamant and insistent that the workers are to be reinstated with back wages and will not accept anything less than that". It is in the above circumstances, they have approached this court with this original petition. They submit that the dispute between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent and other teachers is one relating to the employment of the teachers in the educational institution and therefore, it does not come within the unfair practice. The 3rd respondent herself has initiated action before the labour officers. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had exceeded jurisdiction in assuming powers which he does not have under Ss.17 and 18, and should not have insisted for reinstatement of any teachers. It is also contended that the Commission shall not interfere with the civil dispute or labour dispute. It is also contended that under the guise of issuing summons to witness, the Commission is not entitled to summon a person as accused or to prosecute him. 2. A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 1st and 2nd respondents. It is also contended that the Commission shall not interfere with the civil dispute or labour dispute. It is also contended that under the guise of issuing summons to witness, the Commission is not entitled to summon a person as accused or to prosecute him. 2. A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 1st and 2nd respondents. It is stated that "whenever a particular complaint is received by the Commission, preliminary enquiry to find out the root cause of the problem and the general issue which affects similar persons will be conducted by the Commission. For that purpose, the concerned parties will be summoned to the office of the Commission invoking the power vested in it under S.15(a) of the Kerala Women's Commission Act, 1990". It is further submitted in Paragraph 3 of the Counter affidavit that "on going through the complaint, the Commission found that there is prima facie case of unfair practice to women and therefore decided to conduct an investigation and enquiry into the matter in exercise of the powers conferred on it under S.17(1)(a) of the Act. Ext. P1 is issued by the Commission by virtue of the powers conferred on it under S.15(1)(a) of the Act, whereby they are empowered to summon attendance of any witness and examine him" (emphasis supplied). Thus, according to the 1st and 2nd respondents, Ext. P1 is a summons issued under S.15(1)(a) to ensure attendance of witness. The said Section enables the Commission to exercise the powers vested in the civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witness and examining him. 3. If Ext. P1 is a summons issued to a witness necessarily the persons to whom the summons are issued shall have the obligation to appear and give evidence. The petitioners cannot avoid that liability cast on them. 4. If Ext. PI is a summons to a witness, there arise no question of prosecution under Ss.17 and 18 of the Act against them. It is stated in Ext. P1 that "also enquiry, investigation and consequent prosecution as per Ss.17 & 18 will be initiated and you will have no defence of natural justice". An enquiry and investigation under S.17 is against "a person complained against" or "the person against whom the complaint has been made". It is stated in Ext. P1 that "also enquiry, investigation and consequent prosecution as per Ss.17 & 18 will be initiated and you will have no defence of natural justice". An enquiry and investigation under S.17 is against "a person complained against" or "the person against whom the complaint has been made". S.18 provides that if after investigation into any complaint under S.17, the Commission is satisfied that a person has committed any criminal offence; he shall be prosecuted. That prosecution is also in respect of a person against whom complaint has been made. Therefore, mentioning of the above quoted sentence in Ext. PI shows that the petitioners are the persons against whom complaint has been made before the Commission and are not witnesses. The averment in the Counter affidavit also shows that a petition was received from the 3rd respondent and other teachers against the petitioners. Therefore, it is in the above circumstances, Ext. P1 had been issued. It is also the averment in the Counter affidavit that "on going through the complaint, the Commission found that there is a prima facie case of unfair practice to women and therefore decided to conduct an investigation and enquiry into the matter" (emphasis supplied). It is further stated that "the preliminary enquiry made by the Commission reveals that the contention taken in para 2 of the original petition is not correct". That is with regard to the claim of the petitioners that their institution is a charitable institution. Thus, Commission had conducted a preliminary enquiry also. 5. It is stated that as mentioned above the Commission had decided to conduct an investigation and enquiry. Investigation is mentioned in S.17(2). That is a preliminary investigation to be conducted by the 2nd respondent Director. That shall be "before the issue of any process to the person complained against". From the Counter affidavit of the 1st and 2nd respondents it is evident that the petitioners are the persons against whom complaints are made. An enquiry is contemplated after the issue of process to the persons complained against. That shall be "before the issue of any process to the person complained against". From the Counter affidavit of the 1st and 2nd respondents it is evident that the petitioners are the persons against whom complaints are made. An enquiry is contemplated after the issue of process to the persons complained against. That is the enquiry contemplated in sub-s.(3) of S.17 which reads as follows: "Where the person against whom the complaint has been made, appears and show cause or fails to appear on the day appointed for that purpose the Commission may proceed to inquire into the matter in the complaint and take a decision thereon and if the Commission finds that there is unfair practice it shall recommend to the Government the action to be taken thereon or initiate prosecution", (Emphasis supplied) This section shows that a notice has to be issued to the person against whom the complaint has been made to appear and show cause. If he appears and show cause, further proceeding shall be based on the complaint as well as the cause shown. At the same time, if the person against whom complaint is made fails to appear then also the Commission can proceed with the enquiry on the basis of the complaint. The consequences of failure to appear for enquiry by the person against whom the complaint has been made is not provided for in the action. In other words, the Commission cannot prosecute a person against whom a complaint has been made if his failure to appear to defend the complaint. The Commission can proceed on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant and decide about the action to be taken or whether any prosecution shall be initiated against him with respect to the action complained. Thus, if Ext. P1 is a notice issued to the 2nd petitioner as the person against whom the complaint has been made, the 1st and 2nd respondents cannot insist his personal appearance. But the Commission can certainly proceed with the enquiry against him under S.17(3) and will be entitled to recommend to the Government to take appropriate action or to initiate prosecution. There cannot have any prosecution under S.17 or 18 for the failure of his appearance. It is made clear in Paragraph 8 of the Counter affidavit that "Ext. But the Commission can certainly proceed with the enquiry against him under S.17(3) and will be entitled to recommend to the Government to take appropriate action or to initiate prosecution. There cannot have any prosecution under S.17 or 18 for the failure of his appearance. It is made clear in Paragraph 8 of the Counter affidavit that "Ext. P1 only says that if the parties fail to appear, action under Ss.17 and 18 of the Act will be taken." That does not m6an that the Commission is going to prosecute the petitioners". 6. The allegation of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent was adamant and insistent that the workers are to be reinstated with back wages is denied by the 1 st and 2nd respondents. There is no such insistence. It is further stated that the Director alone has no role in the matter and that if on enquiry the Commission finds that other remedy is available to the complainant the Commission will necessarily recommend for such remedy. 7. In the above circumstances, if summons is issued under S.15(1)(a) to the petitioners to enforce their attendance as witness and for examining them, necessarily, they shall have an obligation to appear and give evidence. If the 1 st and 2nd respondents thus require presence of the petitioners for giving evidence as witness, necessarily the 1 st respondent is free to issue a fresh summons mentioning that they are summoned as witnesses. Upon such summons, the petitioners shall be liable to appear and give evidence. On the other hand, if the petitioners are summoned to answer to the complaint as "the person against whom the complaint has been made", it is optional for them to defend the complaint. But, even if they fail to appear the Commission will be entitled to proceed with the enquiry into the complaint and will be entitled to take appropriate decision in terms of S.17(3) or S.18. As the date for appearance in Ext. P1 and similar notices is already over, there is no reason to enforce the impugned summons. The Commission is free to issue summons or notice as the case may be to the petitioners making it clear whether they are summoned as witnesses or the person complained against. O.P. is disposed of as above. No costs.