The Bombay High Court has ruled that shared public transport not provided by an employer does not fall within the definition of a “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). A division bench comprising Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla quashed and set aside an order passed by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the State Bank of India, which had found an employee guilty of sexual harassment for an alleged incident that transpired in a shared auto-rickshaw. The court held that because the transport was not provided by the employer, the ICC lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute, has been employed with the State Bank of India (SBI) for 14 years. To commute to his office at the Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) from Navi Mumbai, Satpute would travel by local train to Kurla railway station and complete the remaining journey to BKC in a shared auto-rickshaw.
On March 24, 2023, Satpute boarded a shared auto-rickshaw from Kurla station. Due to a shortage of space, the driver seated three passengers in the back, making the seating uncomfortable. The passengers included Satpute, Respondent No. 3 (the complainant, who worked as a chef), and a third passenger.
According to the petitioner, the bumpy road conditions caused his left hand to occasionally touch Respondent No. 3’s bag. Respondent No. 3 reacted by stopping the vehicle near the American Embassy, using abusive language, and accusing the petitioner of inappropriately touching her chest. She then sprayed pepper spray in his eyes.
After a crowd gathered, the auto-rickshaw driver drove them to another location, where Respondent No. 3 called her colleagues and the police. Satpute was subsequently taken to the BKC Police Station, where a case was registered against him under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code.
Respondent No. 3 also lodged a sexual assault complaint with the Internal Committee of her own employer. That committee forwarded the complaint to SBI, which referred it to its own ICC (Respondent No. 2). Following an inquiry, SBI’s ICC issued an order on August 29, 2023, finding the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and recommending disciplinary action under the bank’s service rules. Although the petitioner filed an appeal against the order, he also filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Anand Pande, argued that the ICC only has jurisdiction under the POSH Act if the alleged harassment takes place at the “workplace.” He pointed out that under Section 2(o)(v) of the Act, “workplace” only covers transportation to a place visited by an employee during the course of employment if such transportation is provided by the employer. Since the petitioner was traveling via a shared public auto-rickshaw, the incident did not occur at a “workplace,” making the ICC’s order completely without the authority of law.
On behalf of the State Bank of India (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2), counsel Mr. Abhijit Joshi contended that the ICC’s wide interpretation of “workplace” was correct and did not warrant judicial interference. He argued that under Sections 2(a), 9, and 11 of the POSH Act, the ICC possessed the jurisdiction to receive the complaint and subsequently determine whether the incident fell within the scope of the employee’s workplace, meaning its jurisdiction was not affected.
The Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court first clarified that it was entertaining the Writ Petition despite the pending domestic appeal because the petitioner had raised a fundamental issue of jurisdiction.
The court then focused its analysis on the definition of “workplace” under Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act, which includes any place visited by an employee arising out of or during the course of employment, “including transportation by the employer for undertaking such journey.”
Interpreting this provision strictly, the bench observed: “Therefore, in order to fall within the meaning of “workplace”, the transportation has to be provided by the employer.”
Applying this to the facts, the court noted that the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 were sharing a public auto-rickshaw from Kurla Station to BKC. Even though the petitioner was on his way to his office, the transport had not been provided by either his employer or the complainant’s employer. Consequently, the court held that the incident did not occur at a workplace.
The court flatly rejected SBI’s submission that the ICC could first entertain the complaint and then decide whether the incident occurred at a workplace. The bench stated:
“In our view, the law would mandate such an Internal Committee to first decide the jurisdictional question whether the alleged sexual harassment has taken place at a “workplace” and only if the answer to that question is in the affirmative, would the Internal Committee have jurisdiction to conduct a further enquiry in the matter.”
Court’s Decision
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned ICC order dated August 29, 2023.
The bench made it absolutely clear that it had not evaluated the merits of the allegations—specifically, whether or not the petitioner had actually sexually harassed Respondent No. 3 in the shared auto-rickshaw. The court left that aspect open to be addressed in appropriate legal proceedings. No order was made as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 1213 of 2024
Bench: Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Date: June 16, 2026
