POSH Inquiry Timeline: A step-by-Step Guide Under the POSH Act, 2013 

Introduction 

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as POSH Act and Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013, (POSH Rules, 2013), created a statutory mechanism for dealing with sexual harassment at workplace. While the Act is often discussed in terms of prevention and awareness, one of its most important contributions is the procedural framework it creates once an allegation is brought before the internal committee (IC). From the moment a complaint is received until the point at which an appeal may be filed, the law prescribes a series of stages and timelines. 

A POSH inquiry, therefore, is not simply a matter of receiving a complaint, speaking to the parties, asking a few questions and providing a report. There is a process to be followed, and each stage serves a purpose. Some timelines protect the complainant from unnecessary delay while the others protect the respondent’s right to know the allegations and respond to them. At every stage, the IC has to strike a careful balance between confidentiality, sensitivity, procedural fairness and work towards arriving at a conclusion. 

This article unpacks a detailed overview of the redressal mechanism specified under the POSH Act, 2013. 

Redressal mechanism and the Timeline provided under the POSH Act, 2013 and the POSH Rules, 2013 

The process is designed to ensure that complaints of sexual harassment are addressed in a confidential and time bound manner. The IC is required to conduct the inquiry in accordance with provisions of the Act, the principles of natural justice and the organization’s POSH policy. The following stages form part of the process. 

Initiation of Proceedings: Filing of the Complaint 

Under Section 9 of POSH Act, an aggrieved woman may make a complaint of sexual harassment in writing to the IC. The law requires the complaint to be made within 3 months from the date of incident, and where the complaint concerns a series of incidents, the 3-month period is calculated from the date of last incident. However, the 3 month period is not an absolute bar in every circumstance. The IC may extend the period by further period of 3 months if it is satisfied that circumstances prevented the aggrieved woman from filing a complaint within the original period of 3 months. The reasons for granting such extension are required to be recorded in writing by the IC. 

This becomes particularly relevant because such complaints do not always arise immediately after an incident. An employee may initially choose to remain silent because they are uncertain about what happened, concerned about the consequences of complaining, worried about their professional relationship with the respondent, or simply not ready to initiate a formal process. The IC therefore cannot read delay as automatically establishing either truth or the falsity of the allegation. The circumstances surrounding the delay have to be considered within the statutory framework. 

The complaint itself is the document through which the allegations formally enter the POSH process. It contains sufficient particulars for the IC to understand the nature of the allegation and eventually for the respondent to present their side to the complaint. At the same time, the complainant is not expected to draft the complaint like a legal document. A person approaching the IC may have no familiarity with legal terminology, evidentiary requirements or the technical language of sexual harassment law. The IC’s role at this stage is therefore not to consider the complaint as a final statement but, treat it as a document to understand the concerns raised, identify the allegations that require examination and commence the statutory process where the complaint falls within its jurisdiction. 

Sharing of the complaint with the Respondent 

Once the complaint is received by the IC in writing, according to Rule 7(2) of the POSH Rules, 2013, a copy of the complaint must be shared with the respondent within 7 working days. This is an important procedural safeguard because the respondent cannot be expected to defend themselves against the allegations that have not been communicated to them.  

However, while sharing the complaint the IC has to ensure to comply with the aspects of confidentiality required under the law as POSH proceedings frequently contain sensitive personal information, private conversations, photographs, messages and other material that should not be circulated within the workplace. Confidentiality, however, does not mean that the respondent is to be kept unaware of the allegations or of the complainant’s identity.  

Consider a situation where X complains that their manager, Z, repeatedly sent them personal messages late at night and made comments about their appearance. Z cannot reasonably be expected to answer a vague notice stating only that inappropriate conduct has been alleged. They need to know what messages or conduct is being referred to so that they can provide their version. At the same time, the IC must ensure that those materials are shared only with the persons who are entitled to receive them as part of the proceedings. 

Submission of Respondent’s Written Response 

Upon the receipt of the complaint by the respondent, they are required to submit their response to the complaint along with list of documents and witnesses, if any, within a period not exceeding 10 working days. 

This is not merely a formality; it is respondent’s first opportunity to answer the allegations. They may admit certain facts, deny others, provide an alternative explanation, highlight inconsistencies, produce documents or identify witnesses who may have relevant information. The response may also reveal that some facts are undisputed between the parties.  

For instance, suppose the complaint states that the respondent followed the complainant from office to a metro station. The respondent may accept that both travelled towards the same metro station but deny that they followed the complainant. The question for the IC then, is no longer whether both were at the same station, but whether the respondent’s conduct amounted to following the complainant in the circumstances alleged. 

The response therefore helps provide further clarity on the issues that the IC may ultimately have to determine. 

Conciliation proceedings 

Before proceeding with an inquiry, Section 10 of the POSH Act 2013, provides the aggrieved woman the choice to opt for conciliation which in simpler terms means a mutual settlement between the parties. It is important to note that the IC cannot decide that a settlement would be easier for everyone and direct the parties to agree to it.  

It is expressly provided that monetary settlement, or punitive terms cannot be the base of a conciliation. If the parties arrive at a settlement, the IC documents the settlement and forwards it to the employer or district officer, as the case may be, for appropriate action. Further, if the aggrieved woman informs the IC that the terms have not been complied with, the IC may look into it and proceed with an inquiry if needed.  

Commencement and conduct of the Inquiry 

Where the complainant does not opt for conciliation or where the matter proceeds to inquiry, the IC begins the fact-finding process under Section 11. The inquiry has to be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice which means that the parties must be given an equal opportunity to present their side and be heard in a fair and neutral manner.  

Interim relief during the Inquiry 

The inquiry does not necessarily take place in a neutral environment. In many cases, the complainant and respondent continue to work in the same organization, sometimes even in the same team. Section 12 provides for interim measures upon a written request from the complainant, such as transfer of either party, leave for the complainant for up to period of 3 months or other measures contemplated under the Act as long they are protective and not punitive. For example, if a complainant and respondent work closely together, and the continued reporting relationship is making it difficult for the complainant to participate freely in the inquiry, a temporary change in reporting arrangements may be considered. 

However, such an arrangement cannot automatically be treated as a finding against the respondent as the inquiry is still pending. 

Examination of evidence 

Once the inquiry is underway, the IC begins examining the evidence which could include emails, WhatsApp messages, photographs, CCTV footage, attendance records, travel records, workplace communication documents, oral statements, witness accounts, etc. The IC is required to examine the relevancy and context of all evidence submitted to it, before including it in the inquiry process. 

The IC is not required to approach the allegations as though it were determining criminal guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but at the same time, every allegation should not automatically be accepted merely because it has been made.  

Cross examination  

The IC proceeds to communicate with the parties and the relevant witnesses, if any, individually and documents their statements after the complaint is shared with the respondent. These statements are then shared with the parties, after which, the parties get the option to cross examine each other and the witnesses, if any, in the presence of IC, rather than permitting direct confrontation between the parties. Procedural fairness requires that allegations and relevant evidence are not simply accepted without giving the other side a reasonable opportunity to respond. 

Findings of the IC 

Upon the completion of examination of parties, witnesses and relevant documents, the IC moves towards its finding stage. Until this point, the IC looks at the complaint from the perspective of ‘what exactly has happened,’ which now turns into ‘what does the evidence actually establish?’  

While inquiring into a complaint, the IC should examine each allegation separately in case of multiple allegations. The evidence produced before it may establish the occurrence of an incident but not the sexual nature of it. Alternatively, the evidence may support some allegations while leaving others inconclusive.   

Statutory timeline for completion of Inquiry 

Section 11(4) of the POSH Act provides that the inquiry shall be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint. At the same time, the 90 days cannot be treated as a reason to deny either party a fair opportunity to present relevant evidence. For example, imagine a matter involving several witnesses, extensive electronic communication and disputed events occurring over a period of several months which requires the IC to examine multiple witnesses and verify relevant material. In such a situation, the IC cannot conduct a hurried inquiry, merely to say that it was completed within 90 days, and the Supreme Court observed the same in Aureliano Fernandez. 

Communication of the findings and conclusions 

As per Section 13, the IC must prepare a report containing findings and make it available to the parties and employer within 10 days from the completion of the inquiry. Where an allegation is proved, the IC may make recommendations in accordance with the Act and applicable service rules and where the allegation is not proved, the IC records a conclusion accordingly.  

A POSH complaint does not necessarily have to be treated as an ‘all or nothing’ and the findings should clearly and in a reasoned manner identify what is proved, what is not proved, and the material upon which the concluding findings are based.  

Implementation of Recommendations by the Employer 

Once the IC makes its recommendations, Section 13 requires the employer to act upon it within 60 days of receiving it. Where the allegations are proved the IC may recommend disciplinary or other appropriate action in accordance with the POSH Act and Rules or service rules, if applicable.  

Right of Appeal 

Section 18 states that any person aggrieved from the recommendations or the non-implementation of recommendations may appeal to the court or tribunal or as per service rules, if any, within 60 days from the relevant recommendations made by the IC.  

Confidentiality  

Section 16 of POSH Act 2013 restricts the publication or making known the identity and address of the aggrieved person, respondent and witnesses, as well as information concerning the complaint, inquiry proceedings, recommendations and action taken. Every person involved once the complaint is received must be careful about how documents are circulated, meetings are scheduled and who is given access to the documents relevant to the IC. However, the IC has to ensure that relevant information is shared to the extent necessary for procedural fairness, while preventing unnecessary disclosure to people. 

Unsubstantiated findings and malicious complaint 

Section 14 deals with punishment for false or malicious complaints and false evidence. A lack of eyewitness or any evidence does not automatically make a complaint a false complaint, as sexual harassment at workplace often occurs in private settings.  There is an important distinction between a complaint that could not be established and one that was filed after knowing that it was false or malicious.  

Conclusion 

A complaint cannot be understood by looking at only one isolated event. The IC must establish a chronology, assess evidence, identify the issues and ensure that the entire process takes place in a fair and neutral manner within the timeline which is prescribed under the Act. 

The timeline provided ensures that the process neither remains indefinitely pending nor is done in haste as IC must be able to respond when asked: 

 “Whether the process was fair? Was the complaint properly understood? Was the respondent given adequate notice? Were both sides heard? Was relevant evidence examined? Were confidentiality requirements respected? Were interim measures used appropriately? Were the findings reasoned and allegation specific? Were the recommendations implemented and where necessary, was the appellate mechanism made available?” and so on. 

If you would like to take this conversation forward or explore how your organisation can strengthen its POSH framework, please feel free to reach out to us.

Written by Adv. Sakshi Deshpande, Reviewed by Adv. Farzeen Khambatta