On 25th October, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that terms of Section 6(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, where the Internal Committee has not been constituted due to having less than 10 workers or if the complaint is against the employer himself, the complaint would lie to the Local Committee constituted under Section 6 of the Act.
Facts of Court:
On 26.12.2017, the aggrieved woman was appointed to the post of Editor (English) on probation for a period of two years. As per the aggrieved woman from March 2014 onwards she faced severe sexual harassment of many forms at the hands of the Secretary, which allegedly included inappropriate sexual advances, unwelcome physical and sexual contact, and sexually-coloured remarks. It is alleged that besides sexual harassment, the aggrieved woman was repeatedly subjected to baseless and frivolous office memoranda which were sent to tarnish her employment record.
Contention of the Petitioner:
The following contention has been submitted by the petitioner:
1. It was submitted that as a counterblast to her objections to his inappropriate sexual advances he verbally abused and screamed at her in the presence of other officers for no fault of hers and kept on accusing her of poor performance or not working properly.
2. It was also submitted that owing to Secretary’s persistent sexual misconduct and being pushed to a corner, the aggrieved woman confronted him and told him that she found the manner in which he behaved unacceptable but in response thereto he tried to hold her hand, saying that she should have understood his ‘hints’ and she should provide him ‘bodily satisfaction’ if she did not want her probation period to get extended beyond February 2020.
3. It was further submitted that the aggrieved woman protested and informed the Internal Complaints Committee that it did not have the jurisdiction to look into her complaint against the Secretary and only the Local Committee was vested with the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings based on her complaint, as the Secretary was the employer in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act.
4. It was also submitted that constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee was not displayed as per the provisions of Section 19 the Act and further the committee was reconstituted after a complaint was made to the President.
Contention of the respondent:
The following contention has been submitted by the petition:
1. It was submitted that the Writ Petition filed by the aggrieved woman is not maintainable as she has an alternative remedy of an appeal against the decision of the Internal Complaints Committee.
2. It was also submitted that the Akademi has acted in all fairness. It is submitted that on receiving the complaint against the Secretary, the President noticing that the Internal Complaints Committee comprised of members junior to the Secretary applied the doctrine of necessity and inducted two members of the board as part of the Internal Complaints Committee.
3. It was argued that even if it is assumed that the decision to terminate was taken by the President of the Executive Board, her appeal would also lie to the Executive Board by applying the doctrine of necessity.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The following observation has been made by the Hon'ble court:
1. In terms of Section 6(1) of the Act, where the Internal Committee has not been constituted due to having less than 10 workers or if the complaint is against the employer himself, the complaint would lie to the Local Committee constituted under Section 6 of the Act.
2. The expression “employer” has not been defined to mean only the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority as has been contended on behalf of the Akademi.
3. The Secretary is held to be an “employer”in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act.
4. There is merit in the contention of the aggrieved womanthat she has never filed any complaint before the Internal Committee and as such the Internal Committee could not have conducted any inquiry or submitted a report and on that ground also the report and the findings, opinion and recommendations are non est.
5. The plea of applicability of the doctrine of necessity is misplaced.
Thus, it was held that since it has been held that the Secretary is the ‘employer‘mand the Internal Complaints Committee was not competent to entertain a complaint against the Secretary, so there was no question of applying the doctrine of necessity and inducting members of the board of external members. Only the Local Committee is competent to entertain the complaint against the ‘employer’.
Read Judgment;
source ; //www.latestlaws.com
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments