Facts Of the Case:

The petitioner has challenged the validity of the final report  of the Internal Committee regarding sexual harassment of women at workplace. Along with this, the petitioner has also challenged the order of transfer from Bengaluru to Koppal office, which is said to have been issued on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee.

According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Finance Officer on a contract basis. A false complaint of sexual harassment was lodged against him by the second respondent. The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to this complaint. The Internal Committee gave recommendations in its final report, on the basis of which the order of transfer was issued.

The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and applied for stay. However, no order on stay has been issued by the Appellate Authority so far. As a result, the petitioner is suffering serious loss and damage.

Petitioner’s contention:

The petitioner contended that he has filed an appeal against the recommendations of the Committee, but the appellate authority has not yet passed any order on his plea for interim relief. They claimed that they are suffering inevitable loss in the absence of any interim order till the appeal is decided.

Respondent’s contention:

In this case, the court exempted the  respondent  from issuing notice as the appeal is already pending before the Authority. However, it was argued that there is no express provision for granting interim relief under the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 and the Rules thereunder. But there is also no express prohibition that the Authority cannot grant interim relief.

Court’s observations

The court admitted that the provision for interim relief is not expressly mentioned in the POSH Act and the Rules thereunder. However, based on several decisions of the Supreme Court and general legal principles, the court held that when an authority is empowered to decide an appeal, it is also empowered to grant interim relief till the disposal of the appeal.

The Hon’ble Court observed that: “Further, the principle is that every Court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim “ubi aliquid conceditur”

Citing Supreme Court’s decision in ITO v. M.K, Mohammed Kunhi (1969) and Savitri v Govind Singh Rawat (1986), the court laid down the principle that where a law requires the authority to do any act, it is presumed that the authority has the power to do other acts necessary to give effect to that act.

The Hon’ble Court observed that: “The appellate authority, despite the absence of specific provision for granting of interim order, would have the power to consider the interim application.”

Court’s Decision:

The court ordered that while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority should decide on his plea for interim relief. It was directed that the appellate authority should take a decision within two weeks after considering the proper legal basis in the matter.

The court disposed of the petitioner’s plea with a direction that the appeal be disposed of as early as possible. The court also said that the pleadings and facts of all the parties are still open, and the effect of the final decision will depend on them.

– Credits: By Anaida Khan Pursuing 5th year of BALLB (Hons.) from Dharmashashtra National Law University, Jabalpur