Introduction

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplaces (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Act, 2013 (‘POSH Act’) was enacted with the purpose to provide a safe and dignified work environment to every woman. However, today, even a decade later, we notice that there are not only grey areas that emerge in practice, but also a lack of awareness amongst the public and most importantly among the stakeholders in a workplace regarding the scope and applicability of the POSH Act.

One such aspect is the evolving understanding of ‘workplace.’

As per the definition given under Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act, 2013,  workplace includes ‘any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment including transportation by the employer for undertaking such journey’ This means that the interaction need not necessarily be only during the course of employment, it includes even interactions that ‘arise out of workplace’. 

In our experience in training and inquiry processes, there are frequent questions around whether interaction on social media platforms constitutes a workplace, and whether private or group digital interactions are covered under the POSH Act.

 A conventional understanding of the ‘workplace’ evokes a clear image of a traditional office setup with cabins, meeting rooms – a defined physical presence. However, in the context of the POSH Act, this understanding has significantly expanded to include a myriad of interactions between people having a working relationship, making it clear that the workplace is no longer confined to physical spaces. For instance, if an employee of an organization engages with a colleague on a digital platform after work hours and makes sexual remarks, would the aggrieved employee be protected under the POSH Act?

This article examines the broad and extensive definition of ‘workplace’ along with how it has evolved over time. The scenarios discussed aid in understanding the practical application of the provisions, supported by significant judicial interpretations and landmark court judgements.

For further clarity, the following scenarios highlight commonly raised questions regarding the definition of a workplace.

Unfolding The Definition Of ‘Workplace’

Scenario 1:

A close-knit group of colleagues step out to a resort over the weekend to unwind. One of the male colleagues makes a sexual comment about the dress of one of the female colleagues that makes her deeply uncomfortable.

Will this scenario constitute a ‘workplace’ under POSH? Can she file a complaint with the Internal Committee (IC) of the organization?

The above scenario can become complex to deconstruct. But as per the POSH Act, it can come under the definition of ‘workplace’.

Even though the incident occurred outside of the physical workplace and through an informal gathering, the parties involved have a working relationship. Further, the incident is likely to affect their working environment.

We can also lean on key case laws to support our understanding for instance, in case of Silajit Guha vs Sikkim University and Ors. (2020), the Sikkim High Court clearly recognized that, “the definition of sexual harassment at workplace is inclusive not exhaustive which further allowed the IC to look into the matter.”

This shows the clear approach of the courts that even if the incident between the male and female colleagues occurs beyond actual location of work such as, resorts, hotels, parties, events and trips which are in nexus with working relationship and the facts and circumstances arising out of employment, then it does constitute ‘workplace’ under the POSH Act.

In scenario 1, the interaction between A and B does constitute a workplace under this Act because A and B were colleagues and have been working in the same organization. The incident that occurred outside of the workplace still has a clear nexus with the professional relationship between the parties which can also be examined through the Doctrine of Notional Extension.

Here the key factors to focus on are:

• Has the incident occurred at workplace
• Has the incident occurred between two people who have a working relationship, thus arising out of workplace
• The incident potentially creates a hostile work environment.

Notional Extension Of Workplace

The Doctrine of Notional Extension fills the gap between the traditional definition of workplace and the extended and broad scope of beyond workplace which constitutes workplace under the POSH Act. In the context of interaction between A and B and whether the conversation constitutes a workplace or not will be answered and supported by the Doctrine of Notional Extension.

In case of Saurabh Kumar Mallick vs CAG (2008), the Delhi High Court held that, “the term “workplace” cannot be restricted or limited to a physical office, and it must be interpreted to include any place of working or any interaction of employee which is directly connected to their employment.” From this judgement it can be inferred that the definition of workplace under the POSH Act is subjected to extended interpretation of judiciary and circumstances of the case guided by the essential elements of sexual harassment at workplace.

While this decision specifically recognized official outings as falling within the ambit of a workplace, subsequent judicial pronouncements have further broadened the scope, extending the concept to various non-traditional and virtual work-related settings.

Do Digital Interactions On Unofficial Platform Fall Within The Ambit Of The Workplace?

As organizational communication increasingly occurs across both official and unofficial digital platforms, the question arises as to whether interactions on unofficial platforms are regarded as workplace issues when a complaint is filed?

Scenario 2:

Colleague A Messages Colleague B are working for the same organization but from two different cities. They message one another late at night on Facebook. One day, Colleague A sends a sexually inappropriate message to Colleague B.

Will this constitute a workplace issue?

With the increase in virtual interactions, such instances have been coming up in the complaints we have been receiving and yes, this will also come under the POSH framework.

In this case, the incident is sexual in nature, the two parties have a working relationship, and the incident has a potential of creating a hostile work environment.

Further, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sanjeev Mishra vs The Disciplinary Authority and General Manager, Bank of Baroda (2021), held that, “the employees working in different branches, in different cities and different states but for the same organization will constitute a workplace and the conversation between them on digital platforms would also constitute a workplace, hence it would come under the ambit of sexual harassment at workplace.” This judgement clarifies that the virtual workplace has been recognized under the extended definition of ‘workplace’. It also demonstrates the power of judicial interpretation and enforceability of such provisions expanded by the court of law.

In the case of Dr. Amit Kumar v. University of Delhi (2025), the Delhi High Court held that, “interactions on digital platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook between a professor and a student constitute workplace because the interaction arose from their professional relationship.” The court was of the opinion that any interaction originating from a professional interaction will be considered as workplace.

Do Group Chats Fall Within The Ambit Of Workplace Under POSH Law?

Scenario 3:

A group of colleagues created an informal WhatsApp group and shared pictures of a colleague ‘C’ that was not on the group. They also made sexually inappropriate remarks regarding ‘C’. ‘C’ later learnt about this and was deeply disturbed.

Does this constitute a workplace issue? Can ‘C’ file a complaint of sexual harassment to the IC?

We have also received complaints like the above which involve virtual groups. And yes, this can still constitute workplace under POSH.

The individuals involved share a professional working relationship, and irrespective of whether the WhatsApp group was formal or informal, such conduct has the potential to create a hostile work environment for C. Section 2(n) of the POSH Act recognizes that sexual harassment may occur either directly or by implication. Accordingly, even though C was not a member of the group, the act of sharing C’s pictures and making sexually inappropriate remarks can cause humiliation and contribute to an intimidating and hostile work environment, thereby constituting a workplace issue.

The courts, through various judgments, have consistently held that the provisions of the law must be interpreted broadly to ensure that all instances of sexual harassment at the workplace are effectively addressed and that adequate protection is extended to women employees, in furtherance of the objective of creating a safe and conducive work environment. This approach is evident in Jaya Kodate v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (2013), where the court emphasized that the definition of “workplace” under the POSH Act is inclusive in nature and was deliberately kept wide by Parliament to ensure that no space where women may be subjected to sexual harassment is left unaddressed. Similarly, in Ayesha Khatun v. State of West Bengal (2012), the Calcutta High Court observed that the scope of “workplace” should not be narrowly construed and must be accorded a broader interpretation to remove any barriers that hinder a working woman from attending or performing her work.

This interpretation aligns with the approach adopted by Supreme Court in Sohail Malik v. Union of India (2025), in this case the court held that a complainant is not required to file a complaint with the respondent’s organization. The Court held that the Internal Committee of the complainant’s own organization is competent to conduct an inquiry against the respondent, provided the respondent is an employee of any organization, even if not employed by the complainant’s organization. Upon completion of the inquiry, the findings may be forwarded to the respondent’s employer for appropriate action. The Court emphasized that the POSH Act is a social welfare legislation intended to provide women with accessible and effective redressal mechanisms. Compelling a woman to approach the Internal Committee of an unfamiliar workplace would create substantial procedural and psychological barriers, thereby defeating the very purpose of the POSH Act.

Conclusion

The legislature deliberately provided a broad and extensive definition of ‘workplace’ to anticipate future developments and possibilities which might arise with a changing and evolving work environment. Judicial interpretations of the POSH Act emphasize its protective and remedial purpose, ensuring all forms of workplace sexual harassment, whether it is direct, implied, or digital are addressed. Courts have clarified that the definition of ‘workplace’ is broad, and accessible redressal should not be hindered by organizational boundaries or procedural barriers. These rulings reinforce that the POSH Act must be applied purposively to create a safe, dignified, and inclusive work environment for all employees. This inclusivity can be seen in extended definition of ‘workplace’ which includes digital communication platforms, private chats, group chats, interactions of employees working in digital space via virtual meetings, video conferencing and even different cities and states.

FAQs

Written by Adv. Vaishnavi Parate and Adv. Prerana Saraf, Reviewed by Rosanna Rodrigues