Introduction:

In a midsized IT company with over 120 employees, with mostly male dominated engineering teams, Ms. P*, a software engineer, joined six months ago. Her team lead, Mr. G*, often joked about how ‘enjoyable’ the office was because of her ‘presence.’ He started commenting on her clothes, calling her cute, adorable, hot, sexy in group chats, and once cornered her near the pantry saying, “Don’t take it seriously, it’s just fun between us.”  When P* refused to laugh along, his tone changed. He began questioning her work in front of seniors, calling her slow and not a team player. She filed a complaint of Sexual harassment with the Internal Committee (IC).

During the first meeting she tells the IC members that she is very anxious about further retaliation now that she has filed the complaint. In a scenario like this what can the IC members do?

*This is a case study based on the firm’s experience but not specifically regarding any particular person/case. It is intended for learning and reflection purposes only.

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Act, 2013, i.e., the POSH Act was enacted to provide a robust legal framework addressing sexual harassment at workplace. This legislation reflects the intent to ensure a safe, dignified and equitable working environment for women, while establishing clear mechanisms for prevention, prohibition and redressal of any untoward incident.

While the POSH Act lays down a comprehensive framework to address the sexual harassment at workplace, its effectiveness also depends on timely protective measures during the inquiry process.

There are numerous practical and procedural aspects involved in implementing its provisions, as can be seen in the scenario above.

In this situation, the POSH Act provides space for supportive measures known as interim relief, which is a temporary step taken by the Internal Committee (IC) of the organization, during pendency of the inquiry to protect the complainant and provide a safe working environment until the disposal of the complaint.

The intention of this article is to unpack the meaning of interim relief, define the role of IC and discuss the rights available to the complainant during the pendency of the inquiry process.

Decoding Interim Reliefs as per the POSH Act:

Accessing Interim Relief under POSH Act, 2013:

It becomes essential to be aware of how one can access interim relief measures. And for IC members to understand under what conditions these measures can be instituted.

The measures decided by the IC or interim relief are recommended to the employer who in turn is obligated to implement the same.

The relief provided is temporary as the same exhausts once the inquiry is concluded. It does not become the permanent feature of the employment relationship between the complainant and the respondent unless employer chooses the same.

Every time a complaint regarding sexual harassment at workplace is filed with the IC, the same is acknowledged and the IC begins the fact-finding inquiry only when the Complainant chooses it as the preferred mechanism for redressal, as per the process laid out in the legislation.

During this process, the complainant by making a request in writing, pleads with the IC for grant of interim relief, basis which the IC assesses the threat and the necessity for relief. The risk may possibly be of retaliation, for example, denial of promotions, reduction of salary, hostile remarks, or the psychological traumas being anxiety, depression, nightmares, fear etc. caused by continuous encounter with the respondent after the incident in the workplace.

Once the risk is assessed and the IC is of the view that there is a need for granting interim relief, then the IC can decide on a suitable interim measure basis the feasibility of the organization and the same can be recommended to the employer. Further, on receipt of such recommendation from the IC, the employer goes ahead with issuance of formal orders to communicate the same to the respondent. Once the same is implemented, the employer is further obligated to report the same to the IC.

Role of the IC with respect to Interim Relief measures under POSH Act, 2013:

👉 The role of the IC in the context of interim relief is both procedural and facilitative.

👉 At the outset, the IC is expected to inform the complainant about the availability of interim relief under the law, ensuring that she is aware of the protective measures that may be invoked during the pendency of the inquiry. This dissemination of information helps assure the complainant that her safety, dignity and wellbeing will be safeguarded throughout the process. Interim relief thus operates as a mechanism to prevent retaliation, intimidation, or any further distress during the inquiry.

👉 At the same time, it is important to note that under Section 12 of the POSH Act, the IC in general cannot recommend interim relief suo moto(on its own motion) and must act upon a written request made by the complainant. This requirement ensures that such measures are guided by the complainant’s own needs and preferences, rather than being imposed on her.

👉 However, judicial interpretation indicates that this requirement is not absolute in all circumstances. Courts have recognized that IC may take necessary steps to ensure a safe working environment and preserve the integrity of the inquiry, even in the absence of formal request from the complainant. For instance, in the case of Dinesh Chandra Mishra vs Dr. Trilochan Mohapatra, the Delhi High court clarifies that the administrative actions such as transfer of the respondent are not necessarily contingent upon a request made by the complainant and may be undertaken independently to ensure a fair and safe working environment.

Rights of the Complainant with respect to Interim Relief measures under POSH Act, 2013:

👉 During the course of inquiry, the Complainant has the right to seek interim relief under Section 12 of the POSH Act to ensure her safety and dignity is protected. This includes the right to request any measure provided in the section to prevent discomfort, retaliation of interference with the inquiry.

👉 Importantly, the Complainant also has the right to be informed about the availability of such reliefs by the IC, enabling her to make an informed decision.

These rights are rooted in the principle that the inquiry process should not aggravate the Complainant’s situation but instead provide a secure and supportive environment while the proceedings are ongoing.

Role of HR with respect to Interim Relief measures under POSH Act, 2013:

It is important to note that HR intervention in this regard remains external to the inquiry process and is not involved in the proceedings – however, it holds importance in the context of interim relief being provided.

👉 HR plays an important supporting role in implementing the IC’s recommendations of interim relief during the pendency of the inquiry, including facilitating internal transfers, granting leaves or workplace adjustments in terms of reporting structure or seating arrangements, while maintaining strict confidentiality.

👉 HR must also ensure that no retaliation or hostile environment arises during the inquiry and at the same time, it must remain neutral and avoid any interference, acting only as a bridge for effective implementation.

Types of Interim Reliefs under the POSH Act, 2013

Section 12 of the POSH Act, provides for various interim relief to the aggrieved woman during the pendency of an inquiry, enabling the Internal Committee or the local committee as the case maybe,  to recommend measures such as transfer of the parties, leave up to three months, or other necessary safeguards, which the  employer is obligated to implement. Let’s dive into each of the reliefs:

Transfer of the complainant or the respondent:

It is essential to note here that, transfer may be granted as a valid interim relief, provided it remains neutral and does not result in any demotion, reduction in pay, or downgrade in the respondent’s role or status. If such adverse consequences arise, the measure becomes punitive in nature, which is impermissible at the interim stage.

For example, in a case where two teachers were employed within the same premises of the university and one of them files a complaint of sexual harassment against the other and during the pendency of the inquiry, the complainant requested for the respondent to be transferred to other branch of the university. Based on the request, the IC recommended the Employer to temporarily move either the complainant or the respondent to another branch of the same university to erase the possibility of any contact between the parties during the inquiry. This is essentially recommended when it is required for both parties to work in the same organization but cannot share the same workspace.

Change in reporting structure:

In an instance, the complainant alleged that her manager engaged in an unwelcome conduct by persistently staring at her during the meetings, reviews, reporting and at her workstation, causing discomfort, thereby during the pendency of her inquiry the reporting structure was revised, and she was asked to directly report her skip manager to ensure safe working environment.

Therefore, during the inquiry, the IC, when there is a possibility of retaliation, may recommend the employer to change the reporting structure of the Complainant to prevent the hostile working environment and ensure the integrity of the process.

Leave entitlements:

In an instance, where two employees were assigned to the same project, the complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in stalking behavior, including following her on multiple occasions and waiting near washroom, causing her significant discomfort and insecurity.

The IC considering the prevailing circumstances, recommended that she may be granted leave until the disposal of the complainant or to work from home in case of necessity, to ensure her safety and well-being. Therefore, the IC, to protect the interests of the complainant, can provide her with leave for a period until the inquiry is completed, for a period of 3 months, in addition to the leave that she is entitled to.

What measures are not acceptable?

Interim relief under the POSH framework must not be punitive in nature. During the pendency of an inquiry, the IC is obligated to remain impartial and uphold the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Any measures that appear punitive in nature risk conveying a presumption of guilt against the Respondent, undermining the neutrality of the inquiry process. The purpose of interim relief is not to penalize, but to create a safe and conducive environment that enables the complainant to participate in the proceedings.

For instance, during the inquiry process, if the IC recommends, as an interim measure, that the respondent be suspended without any pay or benefits and be barred from entering the workplace until the inquiry is completed, particularly where the respondent’s role requires regular fieldwork such a direction would be prima facie punitive, treating the respondent guilty before any findings have been reached.

The IC also has to exercise caution while recommending interim measures to ensue that the Complainant does not feel penalized or disadvantaged for raising a complaint under the law.

For instance, if the IC recommends Work from home as an interim relief to prevent the respondent from approaching the complainant engaging in unwelcome conversations, but the Complainant’s job specifications required her to physically be present in the workplace, thereby imposing such a measure in these circumstances could have made her feel disadvantaged. Therefore the IC has to ensure that the interim relief granted must balanced and does not inadvertently operate to Complainant’s detriment.

In response to the situation posed in the earlier part of the article, the IC members, in the given circumstance, may recommend the following interim relief measures after looking into the feasibility of the situation to the employer to ensure that P*’s peace of mind is safeguarded throughout the process:

👉 P* be shifted to a different project team for the duration of the inquiry provided it is not jeopardizing P*’s work and responsibilities.

👉 G* be instructed not to communicate with P* except through written emails routed via the new lead.

👉 P* be allowed to work from home for two weeks while HR arranged the transfer.

👉 These interim measures had an immediate effect as P* stopped having panic like moments before entering the office, she could focus on her work and cooperate with the inquiry calmly and G*’s attempts to isolate her professionally were blocked by the change in reporting structure.

Further, confidentiality constitutes a cornerstone of the entire framework under the POSH Act, ensuring that the dignity and privacy of all the parties involved are preserved throughout the proceedings. Accordingly, any individual who becomes privy to the process, including during the stage of interim relief, is obligated to maintain strict confidentiality, often formalized through the execution of non-disclosure agreements. In instances where HR is entrusted with implementing interim measures recommended by the IC, it is too bound by an obligation of confidentiality undertaking. This ensures that sensitive information is not disclosed, thereby upholding the integrity and underlying purpose of the Act.

Conclusion

Interim relief under the POSH framework is a crucial protective mechanism aimed at ensuring the complainant’s safety and ability to participate in the inquiry without fear or distress. It is not a determination of guilt, but a temporary and preventive measure designed to stabilize the situation during the pendency of the proceedings. From the perspective of mental well-being, such measures like change in workspace, reporting structure, or granting leave help is reducing anxiety and creating a secure work environment, enabling the complainant to engage with the process more effectively. At the same time, it reflects adherence to the legal obligations by demonstrating the employer’s commitment to providing a safe and secured workspace.

The core principle underlying interim relief is of balance and fairness. It is intended to support the complainant without prejudice to the respondent or implying any finding of guilt. Therefore, IC members must ensure that such measures remain non-punitive, proportionate and strictly facilitative in nature. Interim relief should not place the respondent at a disadvantage or create bias but should instead function as a neutral support system that upholds both the integrity of the process and the principles of natural justice.

FAQ’s

Written by: Adv. Sakshi Deshpande supported by Adv. KPS Vasantha reviewed by Adv. Lakshita Bhati