Factual Background:

The appellant, Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai, a retired Senior Principal Scientist of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), was serving as the Director of the Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC), Kerala. A woman employee of IRTC lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against him on 27 November 2024. Following the complaint, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) issued a notice directing him to appear before the Committee. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the ICC and contended that, as Director of IRTC, he was the “employer” within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

According to the appellant, where the complaint is against the employer, Section 6 of the POSH Act mandates that the complaint be received and inquired into by the Local Committee (LC) constituted at the district level and not by the ICC. He therefore approached the District Collector seeking intervention. He also alleged bias and conflict of interest against the Presiding Officer of the ICC and asserted that the complaint had been filed with mala fide intentions. Consequently, he sought quashing of the notice issued by the ICC and a declaration that only the Local Committee possessed jurisdiction to inquire into the allegations.

Court Analysis:

The principal issue before the Court was whether the appellant was an “employee” or an “employer” under the POSH Act. To determine this issue, the Court examined Sections 2(f), 2(g), 4, 6 and 9 of the POSH Act and the Memorandum of Association and Rules governing IRTC. The Court noted that although the Director was responsible for the overall management of IRTC and exercised substantial executive functions, those powers were not absolute. The Memorandum of Association expressly vested ultimate control, administration and management of IRTC in the General Body and the Executive Committee. The Director was appointed by the Executive Committee and functioned subject to its supervision and control. Therefore, the Director could not be regarded as the person having ultimate authority over the institution.

The Court further observed that the statutory scheme of the POSH Act clearly distinguishes between complaints against employees and complaints against employers. Complaints against employees are ordinarily investigated by the ICC, whereas complaints against employers are to be addressed by the Local Committee. Since the appellant was functioning under the authority of the General Body and Executive Committee, he was correctly classified as an employee for the purposes of the Act.

The Court also took note of the submission made by IRTC that although the complainant was a member of the ICC, she would not participate in the decision-making process concerning her own complaint, thereby safeguarding the fairness of the proceedings.

Order of the Court:

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It held that the appellant was an employee and not the employer under the POSH Act. Consequently, the Internal Complaints Committee possessed jurisdiction to receive and inquire into the complaint of sexual harassment filed against him.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa