Introduction:

The petitioner, thus, approached the present Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and filed a writ petition for quashing of the termination order. The petitioner also prayed for reinstatement to his former position with all the benefits that would have accrued to him if he had not been unfairly dismissed including back wages, continuity of service as well as all other privileges and benefits from the first respondent, East Wind Footwear Company Ltd.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner joined the East Wind Footwear Company Ltd as a worker in 2012 and in 2013 was promoted to be a supervisor in the same company. He was promoted to be a manager since he had served the company for five years as a supervisor. It was during the course of the proceeding that the petitioner presented a complaint against a Human Resource Officer singling out the paragraph of the petition that suggested that she compelled  the petitioner to resign from his job. They should have followed it up by establishing a five-member committee to investigate the issue he had raised. However, on 31. 08. 2019, as a result of the suspension from service the petitioner was disconnected from service. The Respondent chose to conduct Internal Committee (IC) investigation considering the petitioner’s sexual harassment charges. He attended the inquiry carried out by the Respondent (IC) as well as provided written objections in regard to the inquiry process. Subsequently, on 18. 12. 2019, the petitioner was dismissed from his job.

Petitioner’s Argument:

An IC inquiry report was used to terminate the petitioner’s employment, which the petitioner claimed was done wrongfully because the process was marred with procedural infirmity. He stated that he did not receive the documents, for instance witness statements and evidence to enable him to address the show-cause notice. The petitioner went on to assert that the inquiry process was one sided and prejudicial. He has approached the court to quash the termination order and the inquiry report and was seeking reinstatement with remunerations for employee wages, employee service continuity among other things.

Respondent’s Argument:

The first respondent herein, East Wind Footwear Company Ltd filed a counter-affidavit together with an appearance. They asserted that the petitioner’s suspension and dismissal were legal and grounded on the recommendations of the IC in relation to the acts of sexual harassment committed by him. The respondent argued that the inquiry was conducted in compliance with the formalities provided for by POSH Act 2013. The company defended itself stating that the petitioner had not complained of procedural vice, but the termination was proper.

Court’s Observation:

Making note of the fact that it doesn’t lie against the first Respondent which is a private Party the court said. It pointed out that the petitioner had other legal rights which could be exercised under law and as such the same could be done in the event the desire was there. The court did not entertain the merits of the case made by the petitioner, to expound on the maintainability of the case.

Court’s Judgement:

Finally, the court dismissed the writ petition on merits holding that the same cannot be filed against a private party as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court did not consider the allegations made by the petitioner or the proceeding of inquiry rather dismissing the petition the court informed the petitioner that he has other legal avenues open to him. The Court also observed that the petitioner could seek redress on the issues raised under Section 18 of the POSH Act, 2013.

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