POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Mandates Local Complaints Committee To Investigate Allegations Even After The Respondent Company Ceased Operations

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Subramonium Prasad, issued a significant ruling in a case involving allegations of sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The court directed the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) to proceed with the investigation despite the respondent company, Enlive Solutions India Private Limited, no longer operating. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of complainants and ensuring accountability, regardless of the company's operational status.

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Amit Sharma, Ms. Pallavi Barva, and Ms. Aparna Singh, initially filed a writ petition seeking the formation of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) at her workplace, Enlive Solutions India Private Limited, after her complaints of sexual harassment were ignored. Despite repeated attempts to seek redress through various authorities, including the Police Commissioner of Noida and the District Magistrate of IP Extension, Delhi, no significant action was taken.

The court underscored the fundamental objective of the POSH Act, which is to ensure a safe and dignified work environment for women. Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted that the closure of the company does not absolve it from its obligations under the Act. The court stated, "The fact that Respondent No.2 has wound up does not mean that the complainants would be left remediless."

Addressing the role of Rajat Bansal, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and one of the accused, the court directed his inclusion in the proceedings before the LCC. Despite Bansal's objections regarding his non-employment status and the maintainability of the application, the court ruled that the investigation should proceed to ensure compliance with the POSH Act. Justice Prasad noted, "The purpose of the POSH Act is that no lady is harassed at workplace. It was the duty of the Respondents No.2 & 3 to ensure that there is a proper ICC in Respondent No.2 Company."

The court referred to the landmark judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) which laid the foundation for the POSH Act, emphasizing the enforcement of gender equality and protection against sexual harassment. The court reiterated, "This is done in exercise of the power available under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of the fundamental rights and it is further emphasised that this would be treated as the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution."

Justice Subramonium Prasad remarked, "The object of the POSH Act is to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace as well as for prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment." He further asserted, "The newly constituted LCC will look into the complaint of the Petitioner to give a meaningful implementation to the Orders passed by the Apex Court in Vishaka, the POSH Act and the Order passed by this Court on 29.03.2023."

The Delhi High Court's decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of women in the workplace and ensuring that mechanisms for redressal are robust and effective, even in challenging circumstances such as company closures. By mandating the LCC to proceed with the investigation, the court has reinforced the legal framework for addressing sexual harassment complaints, thereby setting a precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: May 24, 2024

PETITIONER/AGGRIEVED WOMAN VS STATE OF DELHI & ANR.

Latest Legal News