The Madras High Court has firmly held that any unwelcome actions or words causing discomfort to women at the workplace constitute sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act). Justice R.N. Manjula, delivering the judgment, quashed a Labour Court order that had set aside findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in a case involving complaints of sexual harassment in a corporate environment.
Background of the Case
The case involved allegations of inappropriate behavior by a senior employee against multiple female colleagues. Complaints included unwelcome physical gestures, intrusive questions, and remarks that caused the complainants discomfort and embarrassment. The allegations were investigated by the ICC, which found that the accused had violated workplace conduct standards and recommended several corrective measures, including:
1. Issuing a final warning.
2. Removing the accused from supervisory roles.
3. Limiting his assignments to domestic locations.
4. Suspending pay raises and related benefits for two years.
Dissatisfied with these recommendations, the accused challenged the ICC findings before the Labour Court. The Labour Court overturned the ICC’s report, citing procedural lapses, including the non-provision of CCTV footage and the absence of cross-examination of witnesses. The complainants and the corporate entity contested this ruling in the High Court.
Legal Issues Examined
Justice Manjula examined several critical legal issues in the case, including:
1. Nature of Sexual Harassment: The court highlighted that sexual harassment, as defined under Section 2(n) of the PoSH Act, includes any unwelcome act or behavior—physical, verbal, or non-verbal—that makes a woman uncomfortable.
The judgment emphasized:
“It is not the intention behind the act but how it is perceived by the complainant that defines whether an act amounts to sexual harassment.”
2. Role of the ICC: The court reiterated that ICCs, established under the PoSH Act, serve as quasi-judicial bodies empowered to conduct inquiries into sexual harassment allegations. The ICC’s recommendations are deemed inquiry reports for disciplinary purposes and are not subject to routine judicial interference unless there is clear evidence of bias or procedural violations.
3. Procedural Flexibility in Sexual Harassment Cases: The court acknowledged the unique challenges in handling sexual harassment complaints, particularly the need to balance fairness with the complainants’ safety and dignity. Justice Manjula noted:
“The privacy, secrecy, and safety of the victims must be prioritized, and the standards of fairness during such inquiries should be flexible, adapting to the nature of the complaint and the context.”
4. Limited Scope of Judicial Review: The court criticized the Labour Court’s decision to re-evaluate evidence presented before the ICC. It held that courts should not act as appellate bodies in such cases and must respect the ICC’s findings unless there are compelling reasons to question its fairness.
Court’s Observations
Justice Manjula underscored the emotional and psychological impact of unwelcome gestures or comments in workplace settings, stating that such actions could create an intimidating and hostile work environment. She observed:
“Interaction between genders at workplaces is inevitable, but such interactions must adhere to basic standards of decency. What matters is not how the perpetrator perceives their behavior but how the recipient experiences it.”
The judgment also highlighted that strict evidentiary rules do not apply to ICC proceedings. The ICC’s task is to ensure a supportive and fair environment during inquiries, particularly for the complainants, who may already feel vulnerable.
Decision
After a detailed analysis, the High Court held that the Labour Court’s order was flawed and liable to be quashed. It ruled that the ICC had conducted the inquiry in a fair and reasonable manner, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The non-provision of CCTV footage was deemed inconsequential, as the essence of the complaints pertained to the discomfort and unease experienced by the victims due to the accused’s behavior, which could not be captured in visual evidence.
Quashing the Labour Court’s order, the High Court reinstated the ICC’s findings and recommendations, reinforcing the necessity of ensuring workplaces free of harassment and discomfort for women.
