No Offence of Money Laundering When Scheduled Offence Not Committed: Delhi High Court Upholds Discharge in Money Laundering Case Finality of Resolved Land Compensation Claims In Land Acquisition Cannot Be Undone Based on Policy Changes: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Conspiracy Charges in Burail Jail Break Case, Citing Key Witnesses Turning Hostile Fictional Cause of Action Cannot Circumvent Limitation Law; Plaint Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Supreme Court Judicial Scrutiny Of Interest Rates Is Barred By Law; It Is The Reserve Bank's Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court IBC | High Court Interference In CIRP Proceedings Is Unwarranted Unless There Are Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Recommendations of the Single Member Committee must align with BCCI Constitution to avoid governance conflicts in cricket administration: Supreme Court Excessive Interference Undermines Efficiency And Independence Of Arbitral Proceedings: Supreme Court Awareness of Award's Filing Triggers Limitation, Not Formal Notice: Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Arbitration Awards Contributions To Construction Do Not Confer Exclusive Title Unless Backed By Proof Of Consent Or Separate Agreement: Calcutta High Court Affirms Equal Ownership In Joint Property Seniority Must Prevail in Teacher Transfers: Kerala High Court Overrules Administrative Tribunal's Orders" High Court Cannot Condon Delay Beyond 90 Days in UAPA Bail Appeals: Punjab & Haryana High Court Offences Under Section 138 of the NI Act Are Compensatory in Nature and Can Be Resolved at Any Stage: Madras High Court Fairness and Transparency in Property Distribution: Delhi High Court Resolves Family Dispute Pre-EMI Deductions Without Adherence to RBI Guidelines Not Enforceable Under Writ Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court Unilateral Claims Cannot Substitute Proof: Calcutta High Court Rules in Insurance Dispute Bank Guarantees Are Autonomous Contracts, Cannot Be Obstructed by External Claims: Kerala High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Additional Evidence Cannot Be Used to Fill Gaps in a Party’s Case: P&H High Court Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Actress Shilpa Raj Kundra: Finds No Intent or Mens Rea to Violate SC/ST Act"

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.

Similar News