In a pivotal judgment that underscores the need for clear intent and context in sexual harassment allegations, the Bombay High Court has set aside the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and the Industrial Court, Pune, against an employee accused of inappropriate workplace conduct. The Court held that a comment made about a female colleague’s hair — though inappropriate — does not amount to sexual harassment under the law.
Case Background
The judgment came in Writ Petition No. 17230 of 2024 and was delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne on March 18, 2025.
The petitioner was aggrieved by the ICC report dated September 30, 2022, and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal by the Industrial Court, Pune on July 1, 2024. The ICC, constituted by his employer, had found him guilty of sexual harassment based on a complaint by a female colleague.
He was represented by Advocate Sana Raees Khan, assisted by Juhi Kadu and Sanskriti Yagnik. Notably, neither the ICC nor the employer appeared before the Court, despite service of notice.
Allegations in Question
The ICC had found three broad incidents against the petitioner:
Hair Comment Incident: The petitioner allegedly remarked on a female colleague’s hair by saying, “You must be using JCB to manage your hair,” and followed it by singing a song about hair.
Sexual Remark in Group Setting: He allegedly made a crude comment about a male colleague’s private parts in the presence of other female employees.
Allegation Against Reporting Manager: The complainant also accused her reporting manager (a female employee) of inappropriate behavior. This allegation was unrelated to the petitioner.
The ICC concluded that serious allegations were “confirmed by multiple witnesses,” and claimed the petitioner had attempted to interfere with the investigation.
Key Observations by the High Court
Justice Sandeep V. Marne undertook a detailed examination of all three incidents and held that the ICC’s findings lacked legal and evidentiary rigor. The Court sharply criticized the ICC for failing to engage with the specific elements of each allegation.
On the Hair Comment
The Court found that while the comment about the complainant’s hair might have been in poor taste, it did not amount to sexual harassment as defined under the law. Crucially, the complainant herself continued cordial WhatsApp exchanges with the petitioner even after the incident and appeared motivated by his encouragement.
“Even if the allegations qua Incident No.1 are accepted as proved, it becomes difficult to hold that the Petitioner has committed any act of sexual harassment,” Justice Marne observed.
On the Second Incident
The Court noted that the crude comment was directed at a male colleague and not in the presence of the complainant. It observed:
“It becomes difficult to believe that the conduct described in second incident would cause any sexual harassment personally to the complainant.”
On the Third Incident
The allegation was against another female employee and had nothing to do with the petitioner.
On ICC’s Conduct
Justice Marne criticized the ICC for presenting a vague and unsubstantiated report:
“The Committee has not discussed each article of charge in relation to the evidence appearing on the record. The ICC has merely made vague recommendations.”
He also questioned the timing of the complaint, noting that it was made after the complainant had submitted her resignation, despite previously cordial relations with the petitioner.
Court’s Verdict
The Bombay High Court ruled that even if all incidents were assumed to be factually accurate, they did not constitute sexual harassment within the meaning of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
“The Industrial Court has completely ignored the fact that even if the allegations are taken as proved, no case of sexual harassment of the complainant was made out in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case,” the Court held.
Accordingly, the Court:
Set aside the ICC’s report dated September 30, 2022.
Quashed the Industrial Court’s order dated July 1, 2024 in Appeal (IESO) No. 1 of 2023.
Allowed the writ petition with no order as to costs.
