Case: Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors.  

Factual Background 

The petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India (SBI) for over fourteen years, was the respondent in a sexual harassment complaint filed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Respondent No. 3, the complainant, was employed with a different organisation as a Chef. On 24 March 2023, while both were commuting independently to their respective workplaces in a shared public autorickshaw from Kurla Railway Station to Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC), Mumbai, the petitioner was seated between Respondent No. 3 and another passenger due to overcrowding. According to the petitioner, the cramped seating arrangement and uneven road conditions may have caused his hand to accidentally brush against Respondent No. 3’s handbag. Respondent No. 3, however, alleged that the petitioner had intentionally touched her chest inappropriately during the journey. 

Following the incident, Respondent No. 3 stopped the autorickshaw, confronted the petitioner, used pepper spray on him, and called the police. An FIR was subsequently registered against the petitioner under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 3 initially lodged a complaint before the Internal Committee (IC) of her employer, which was forwarded to SBI’s Internal Committee because the petitioner was an SBI employee. After conducting an inquiry, SBI’s Internal Committee held the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and recommended disciplinary action under the applicable service rules. Aggrieved by these findings, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court, contending that the Internal Committee lacked jurisdiction because the alleged incident had occurred in a shared public autorickshaw rather than at a “workplace” within the meaning of the POSH Act. 

Court’s Analysis 

The principal issue before the Court was whether a shared public autorickshaw used by employees to commute to work could be regarded as a “workplace” under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act, in case the said employee harasses a woman not from the same organisation. Hence, understanding whether the alleged incident happened in the context of workplace, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Internal Committee to inquire into the complaint. The Court examined Sections 2(a), 2(o), 9 and 11 of the POSH Act, noting that the jurisdiction of an Internal Committee is confined to complaints relating to acts of sexual harassment occurring at a “workplace.” In particular, the Court analysed Section 2(o)(v), which includes within the definition of “workplace” any place visited by an employee during the course of employment, including transportation provided by the employer for undertaking such a journey. 

The Court held that the statutory language specifically extends the definition only to transportation arranged or provided by the employer. In the present case, both the petitioner and the complainant were travelling independently in a shared public autorickshaw that had not been provided by either of their employers. Merely because the journey was undertaken while commuting to work did not bring it within the ambit of the statutory definition. The Court rejected the respondents’ contention that the Internal Committee could first assume jurisdiction and subsequently determine whether the incident had occurred at a workplace. It held that the existence of a “workplace” is a foundational jurisdictional requirement which must be satisfied before an Internal Committee can initiate an inquiry. Since the alleged incident did not occur at a workplace as contemplated under the POSH Act, the Internal Committee lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or conduct further proceedings.  

Order of the Court 

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by SBI’s Internal Committee dated 29 August 2023 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that its decision was confined solely to the jurisdictional issue under the POSH Act and did not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations of sexual harassment. It further observed that the parties were at liberty to pursue any other remedies available to them in accordance with law.  

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa