Cart is empty 
Introduction
This case involves a petition revising the decision of Respondent to review a sexual harassment case that was at first heard and dismissed by the Internal Committee IC of the Respondent. The petitioner’s position is that to expose the petitioner to another round of the trial is unfair, and the matter at subject should be concluded.
Facts of the case
On 5th of July 2019 the Petitioner made a report of sexual harassment against one official of the Respondent in his capacity as head of the Human Resource Department. The complaint was sent to Human Resource and Company Vulnerability Officer to take appropriate action. Afterwards on 10th July 2019, IFCI Ltd. asked IFL to look into the complaint in relation to the POSH Act 2013. Although an IC was set up at IFL on 30th July 2019; this committee has been reconstructed many times, namely on 19th August 2019, 23rd August 2019 and 24th February 2020. On 11th March 2020, the IC found the complaint to be true and held the concerned person guilty and passed an order for a written apology from the respondent besides directions to prevent contact between the complainant and Respondent. Most of these recommendations have been approved by the management of IFCI on 12th October 2020. However, as per the Order of the Board of Directors of the Respondent, which filed an appeal against the said order on 11th of July 2022, the IC of the IFCI Ltd. has to reconsider the complaint again on account of certain technical lapse occurred in the constitution of the IC. The petitioner disputed this on grounds of hardship on having to undergo a re-examination which was frustrating and torturous after having taken such a long period of time since the complaint was first made in 2019.
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner’s submissions include the slow pace of the process and the decision to reopen the complaint after such a long period of time is outrageous. She says that it would be oppressive to subject her to a second round of the proceedings and that she no longer wants to continue with this process.
Respondent’s Argument
From the foregoing, it is understandable why Respondent claimed that the right to appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act is statutory and cannot be disregarded. The IC suggested a written apology, which is the corporation’s legal advising, and the public must follow the legal procedures and not make alterations to their personal laws.
Court’s Observations
The Court also observed that the constitution of the IC is relevant in POSH related cases and has to meet the legal burden. This would cause undue hardship to the complainant and the respondent, because of the re-consideration of the case with what has taken now and analyzing the number of re-constitutions of the IC all these times. The Court further stressed that prolongation of such sensitive issues is not acceptable, and it will cause more suffering to all the persons concerned.
Court’s Judgment
Re-enquiry must not be preceded by Respondent , The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi ruled on the issue and dismissed the order to seek re-enquiry. The petitioner’s desire to leave out the apology and draw the curtains on the matter was respected and Respondent was not obliged to offer any apology. The Court also awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs payable to the petitioner by IFCI Ltd. for the unnecessary delay that would have been incurred on the side of the petitioner.
Conclusion
It is seen that this ruling of the Court also makes sure that the matter is ended without putting more pressures on the petitioner through other processes. It emphasizes on time and fair dealing with the sexual harassment complaints and levies a cost on IFCI Ltd. for the same.
– Credits: By Anaida Khan Pursuing 5th year of BALLB (Hons.) from Dharmashashtra National Law University, Jabalpur
