MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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