CAUSE TITLE:
P v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
DATE OF ORDER:
01st February 2023
JUDGE(S):
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
PARTIES:
Petitioner: P
Respondent: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), has stated that, organisations cannot avoid culpability under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act for delaying the resolution of sensitive claims of sexual harassment and administration and authorities are required to act responsibly.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act 2013
- Section 18 - explains that anybody who feels wronged by the inquiry committee's recommendations or by their failure to be followed may choose to appeal to a court or tribunal in pursuance of the service rules that apply to them or the applicable legislation.
BRIEF FACTS:
- The findings were made by the court as it heard a plea from a lady who had complained in July 2019 to the HR director at IFCI Factors Limited about sexual harassment by a superior manager.
- The issue was brought to the attention of the IFL Managing Director, who submitted it to the IFCI Group's HR and CVO to be heard in their ICC as the accused people worked for IFCI. The IFCI Ltd. general manager returned the report to IFL.
- On July 30, 2019, the ICC of IFL was established, and proceedings began. The panel was then reformed again, once on February 24, 2020, and secondly in August 2019. A report was delivered in March 2020 requesting a written apology from the accused employee.
- Chief General Manager of IFCI Ltd. wrote a letter to the ICC noting that the Disciplinary Authority approved the committee's findings and the required directives were given.
- However, the employee appealed to the Appellate Authority of IFCI Ltd. (Board of Directors), and ICC of IFCI was instructed to perform a re-examination.
QUESTIONS ROSE:
Whether re-examination in the case of sexual assault is important in providing punishment to the accused?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The petitioner had objected to the letter in dispute, claiming that since re-examination had been ordered, she was no longer interested in taking part in the investigation because the complaint had been filed in 2019. She said that because the first round of procedures before the ICC was so painful and unpleasant, she did not wish to undergo a second one.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It has been state by the council, that right to appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act cannot be restricted.
- A technical flaw in the ICC's constitution, according to the attorney for ICFI Ltd., led to the company's decision to have the case re-examined.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- The complaint, which dates back to 2019, is clear from the case at hand, and thanks to IFCI Ltd.'s recent action, the situation has reached a dead end.
- The complainant cannot be pressured and put through hardships by being required to repeatedly appear before the ICC, even of a related body, and provide new witnesses each time. Even the mentioned witnesses might not be accessible right now within the company.
- Considering that the alleged error was made by the party for which the re-examination was requested, the court dismissed the argument and ordered IFCI Ltd. to pay the petitioner's costs in the amount of Rs. 1 lakh. And ordered the Respondent No. 2 to pay the expenses within four weeks.
CONCLUSION
The ICC's constitution must adhere to the Act's requirements since it is of the greatest significance. The management and authority of the organisations must act responsibly, and given the current information and circumstances, a re-examination of the entire process cannot be ordered on the simple basis that the constitution was erroneous.
It can be pointed out that the petitioner was clearly employed by IFL at the time the Board of Directors of IFCI merely requested a re-examination by ICC. It further mentioned that the accused worker was serving as Managing Director for IFL during the crucial time.
Therefore the petitioner cannot go through the same process again but the accused should be given accurate punishment for the act done.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
