"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

purpose of the POSH Act is that no lady is harassed at the workplace: Delhi High Court Orders Swift Action on Sexual Harassment Complaint, Emphasizes POSH Act Compliance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi has delivered a crucial judgment mandating compliance with the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The court directed the formation of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to handle the petitioner’s complaint, ensuring procedural adherence even though the respondent company has wound up. This decision, by Justice Subramonium Prasad, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting workplace harassment victims and maintaining the integrity of initial witness testimonies.

The petitioner, an aggrieved woman, filed a writ petition seeking directions to ensure the formation of an ICC where she could lodge her sexual harassment complaint. Despite reporting the harassment to the police and the District Magistrate, no action was initially taken. The petitioner worked for Enlive Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., which failed to constitute an ICC, leading to her approaching the High Court for redressal.

Formation and Functioning of ICC: The court underscored the critical need for an ICC under the POSH Act to address complaints of sexual harassment. “The failure of a company to constitute an ICC cannot be a ground to leave complaints unaddressed,” observed Justice Prasad. He stressed the ongoing duty of authorities to ensure ICCs’ proper functioning even if a company ceases operations.

Protection of Petitioner’s Identity: In line with Section 16 of the POSH Act, the court ordered the petitioner’s identity to remain confidential throughout the proceedings. The judgment stated, “The name of the Petitioner shall be kept confidential and redacted. She would be referred to as the ‘Petitioner/aggrieved woman’.”

Transfer of Jurisdiction: Since the petitioner’s workplace was in Noida, the court transferred the case to the appropriate jurisdiction. The complaint, initially filed in Delhi, was forwarded to the District Magistrate (Gautam Buddha Nagar) for necessary action under the POSH Act.

The judgment reaffirmed the principles laid out in the Vishaka guidelines, mandating robust mechanisms for addressing workplace harassment. Justice Prasad reiterated that the POSH Act was enacted following the Supreme Court’s directive in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), emphasizing the need for effective enforcement of gender equality and protection against sexual harassment.

Justice Subramonium Prasad remarked, “The purpose of the POSH Act is that no lady is harassed at the workplace. The fact that Respondent No.2 has wound up does not mean that the complainants would be left remedy-less.”

The High Court’s judgment ensures the continuation of proceedings under the POSH Act, highlighting the judiciary’s proactive stance in safeguarding the rights of women in the workplace. By mandating the formation of an ICC and ensuring the anonymity of the petitioner, the court’s decision sets a significant precedent for addressing and redressing workplace harassment. This judgment not only upholds the principles of justice but also reinforces the legal framework established to protect victims of sexual harassment at work.

Date of Decision: May 24, 2024

AGGRIEVED WOMAN VS STATE OF DELHI & ANR

Similar News