Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, working as the Manager of Kerala State Financial Corporation (KSFE) has approached the court challenging the proceedings initiated by the Internal Committee (IC) based on a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner issued a memo to eight junior female staff members for not meeting a chitty canvassing target, asking them to provide explanations. The staff members did not respond adequately, and the petitioner escalated the matter to higher authorities. On 20th June 2024, the 3rd respondent, not employed at the branch, forcibly entered the petitioner’s cabin with several others and allegedly misbehaved with the petitioner, attempting to snatch his mobile phone. The petitioner filed a police complaint about this incident. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint to the IC, accusing the petitioner of misconduct, including filming her without consent and using abusive language. A notice was issued to the petitioner by the IC regarding this complaint.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that the notice issued by the IC was beyond its jurisdiction. He argued that the 3rd respondent was not an employee at his branch, and the actions she allegedly took – forcibly entering his cabin, attempting to snatch his phone, and creating a hostile work environment – were unrelated to any allegations of sexual harassment. According to the petitioner, the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent did not contain any claims of sexual harassment as per the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Hence, the petitioner argued that the IC had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and sought the quashing of the notice issued in this regard.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The counsel for the first respondent argued that the petitioner’s apprehension regarding the continuation of the inquiry was premature, as the proceedings before the IC were still at a preliminary stage. It was emphasized that the IC’s role was limited to determining whether the complaint warranted further proceedings under the POSH Act, 2013. The counsel stressed that the IC could only recommend action if the behaviour was found to amount to sexual harassment. Moreover, the IC did not have the authority to impose any punishment but could only make recommendations. Thus, the court was urged not to interfere with the ongoing proceedings at this stage.

Court’s Observation:

The court observed that the central issue was whether the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent met the criteria for sexual harassment under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, 2013. The court noted that sexual harassment includes unwelcome acts or behaviour such as physical contact, demand for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, or any unwelcome sexual conduct. The complaint, however, did not contain allegations of any such acts but merely referred to the petitioner’s use of abusive language and an accusation of attempting to record the conversation. The court highlighted that the 3rd respondent was not employed at the petitioner’s branch, nor was there any claim of sexual harassment in the complaint. The court further noted that the 3rd respondent had allegedly forced entry into the petitioner’s cabin without permission. Therefore, the court found that the complaint did not meet the threshold for sexual harassment under the POSH Act, and there was no jurisdiction for the IC to proceed with the matter.

“When the complaint/allegation does not constitute ‘sexual harassment’ as defined under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, 2013, the jurisdictional fact for taking cognizance on such a complaint and issuing notice to the petitioner is missing.”

Court’s Order:

Considering the above observations, the court concluded that the notice issued by the IC was without jurisdiction. The complaint filed by the 3rd respondent did not fall under the ambit of the POSH Act, 2013. Therefore, the court set aside the impugned notice issued by the IC and allowed the writ petition. The court ruled that the proceedings based on this complaint could not be continued under the provisions of the POSH Act, 2013.

Credits: Deeksha Rai