Judgment : Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. This writ petition has been filed challenging the report dated 27.10.2011. Nay, it would be better to term it as judgment and order or direction. Of course, from the impugned document, we noticed that Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") has described it to be an order. Before considering this submission and the case here, looking at the impugned document, we can safely conclude that the Commission has no power under the law to pass any final order or issue a mandate. That is what exactly done. We deem it appropriate to quote the relevant provision of the Protection of Human Rights Commission Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') with regard to the power and functioning of the Commission. Section 29 of the said Act has empowered the State Human Rights Commissions to apply all the provisions of Sections 9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18. That is what exactly done. We deem it appropriate to quote the relevant provision of the Protection of Human Rights Commission Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') with regard to the power and functioning of the Commission. Section 29 of the said Act has empowered the State Human Rights Commissions to apply all the provisions of Sections 9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18. Section 18 of the above Act provides as follows: The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely: - (a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority – (i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons; (iii) to take such further action as it may think fit; (b) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary; (c) recommend to the concerned Government or authority at any stage of the inquiry for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (d) subject to the provisions of clause(e), provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative; (e) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, withina period of one month, or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commissioners. (f) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission. It is thus clear that the Commission has power to recommend to do something after reaching fact finding and reporting thereof. It is thus clear that the Commission has power to recommend to do something after reaching fact finding and reporting thereof. It cannot direct or issue a mandate to do or not to do something and this can only be done by the Supreme Court and High Court as mentioned in sub-clause (b). On that ground, the mandate and order given by the impugned document, by the Commission, has to be ignored as the same is without jurisdiction. We could have allowed the matter to be rested here. But, a probable question has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners contending that going by the facts and circumstances narrated by the Commission, it has no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter as the disputes raised in the complaint so recorded by the Commission relate to a service dispute, precisely, with regard to payment and non-payment of the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension the unofficial respondent had undergone. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent, also supported by the learned counsel for the Commission, contends that non-payment of subsistence allowance results in the maintenance of the employee. In other words, if the subsistence allowance is denied to the unofficial respondent, her right to livelihood would be seriously affected by the petitioners, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the definition of Human Rights given in the said Act absolutely fits to this situation. So, the Commission has the power to investigate into this matter. In view of the above argument, we think it fit to see what is the power of the Commission to take action. We, therefore, set out Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the definition of Human Rights given in the said Act absolutely fits to this situation. So, the Commission has the power to investigate into this matter. In view of the above argument, we think it fit to see what is the power of the Commission to take action. We, therefore, set out Section 12 of the Act. The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:- (a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf (or on a direction or order of any Court) into complaint of- (i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant; (b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court; (c) visit, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any jail or other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection, for the study of the living conditions of the inmates thereof and make recommendations thereon to the Government; (d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation; (e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures; (f) study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation; (g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights; (h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means; (i) encourage the efforts of non- governmental organisations and institutions working in the field of human rights; (j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights. From Clause (a) of Section 12, it will appear that the Commission has been empowered with the duty to enquire into the complaint of violation of human rights or abetment thereof, and/or the negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant. From Clause (a) of Section 12, it will appear that the Commission has been empowered with the duty to enquire into the complaint of violation of human rights or abetment thereof, and/or the negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant. Basically, it relates to the question of Human Rights. Human Right is not an exhaustive term because it has not been defined exhaustively in the Act. Section 2(d) in this context is appropriate. Therefore, we think that the Human rights as defined in Section 2(d) should be restricted to the rights relating to the life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution of India or embodied in the International Covenants. International Covenants has been defined in the Act by Section 2(f), which is as follows: "International Covenants" means the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 16th December, 1966 and such other Covenant or Convention adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as the Central Government may, by notification, specify." Now, it needs to be examined what are the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, it has to be referred to in this context, the provisions of the Constitution, Article 14, namely, Equality before law; Article 15, namely, Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, which relates to some extent to the dignity of the individuals; Article 16, namely, equality in opportunity in matters of public employment; Article 19, namely, protection of Right to freedom of speech. Then comes Article 20, which relates to protection in respect of conviction for offences, which are relatable to the life and liberty and again Article 21, which relates to protection of life and personal liberty, which is relatable to life and liberty of an individual. Article 22, namely, protection against arrest and detention in certain cases, which right is relatable to right to liberty; Article 23, namely, Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour, which is relatable to right to life and dignity; Article 29, namely, protection of interest of minorities, which is related to right to dignity. Article 22, namely, protection against arrest and detention in certain cases, which right is relatable to right to liberty; Article 23, namely, Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour, which is relatable to right to life and dignity; Article 29, namely, protection of interest of minorities, which is related to right to dignity. In addition to the aforesaid rights, whatever right has been recognized and accepted by the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16.12.1966. We think that the Commission has to examine with care that the complaint must relate to the violation of the aforesaid rights. Here is We think that the Commission has to examine with care that the complaint must relate to the violation of the aforesaid rights. Here is a question whether non-payment of subsistence allowance partakes the character of the right to life or livelihood or not. According to us, nowhere the Constitution provides that the State must provide food, but the State must see that the right to life or livelihood of a person is not affected. Payment of subsistence allowance has been created by Service Rules and it is a relationship of the master and servant in nature and it is not a Fundamental Right or for that matter, all the Fundamental Rights are not human rights. The Fundamental Rights which have been adopted by the above Act are treated to be part of the human rights. In many establishments, in a disciplinary action, when suspension order is issued, the provision for payment of subsistence allowance is not provided. As we have already recorded that payment of subsistence allowance is part of relationship between the employer and employee and in this case, it is contractual one. This provision relating to payment of subsistence allowance has been adopted and accepted by framing the rules. Thus, in our view, these are in essence, service disputes and service disputes between the employer and employee cannot be treated to be complaint of violation of human rights. We are therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Commission that non-payment of subsistence allowance is a human right. We think it is bit impossible to accept this logic. We are therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Commission that non-payment of subsistence allowance is a human right. We think it is bit impossible to accept this logic. Under the circumstances, we allow the writ petition and set aside the report or order, whatever may be termed, which is challenged here. However, this order shall not prejudice the employee concerned to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance. It seems to us that the unofficial respondent has approached an inappropriate forum with a hope to get a quick relief and with least expenses or no expenses. Unfortunately, this adventure is found to be legally unsupportable. We hasten to add that the Court must not overlook the reality of the situation. We, therefore, desire and hope that the writ petitioners would look into the problem of the unofficial respondent with regard to non-payment of the subsistence allowance and if it is legally payable, it should be paid. We clarify that it is not our mandate or direction, but it is our desire. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No costs.