IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established that allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace should be addressed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, rather than being construed as unfair labour practices under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

ORDER :

Present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 22.05.2010 bearing No.KE/382/IDM/2009 at Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.1, in and by which, the respondent No.1 has granted permission to the Respondent No.2 to proceed to prosecute the petitioner for alleged commission of unfair labour practices under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act, 1947').

Brief facts of the matter;

1.2 That the petitioner/Company has placed certain policies and process dealing with the employee related issues providing means and access to the employees to raise any grievance or other issues which they may face during the course of their tenure in the petitioner/Company with a view to combat instances of harassment in the Company. The harassment Avoidance Guidelines have also been placed by the petitioner-Company.

1.3 Petitioner company is a reported Multi National Company in the filed of Information Technology & Information Technology Services. That pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of VISHAKA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241, the petitioner/ Company has also set up a committee which is reconstituted from time to time. The constitution of the Committee is also intimated to the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru. The said Committee consists of four women members and one male member and one external member being familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment.

1.4. It is further case of the petitioner/Company that the Respondent No.2 was appointed by the petitioner/Company as a Data Base Administrator who subsequently became a Systems Programmer in the Integration Division of the petitioner/Company. Respondent No.2 was also involved in administering and supervising several aspects of a project. In the weekly meeting held by the petitioner/Company regarding performance assessment during the month of November 2004, the Respondent No.2 was advised by her direct Manager- Mr. Rajesh Shenoy to improve her communication skills and management skills, failing which she would be awarded Below Expectation Grade. That on 27.11.2004, Respondent No.2 had sent an E-mail complaining that Mr.Rajesh Shenoy, her direct Manager had showed favoritism towards others in her team whereas she was subjected to bias and the respondent No.2 had sought investigation into her being criticized. That the petitioner/Company had created a mechanism called "Open-door Mechanism" which permitted employees to raise the grievances at their own options which were then investigated by the petitioner/Company. The guidelines in this regard were also issued by the petitioner/Company setting out the procedure and process involved in the said mechanism. That the Respondent No.2 had indeed raised her issues against her Manager Mr.Rajesh Shenoy before the "Open-door Mechanism" alleging he unfairly rewarding her Below Expectation Grade for the year 2004-2005. The said allegations were investigated by the petitioner/Company and same were found to be unsubstantiated.

1.5. That Respondent No.2 in terms of the Harassment Avoidance Guidelines issued by the petitioner/Company had raised a sexual harassment "open door" complaint with her HR Managers alleging that she was being subjected to sexual harassment by a co-worker -Mr.Amol Gaitonde whom she claimed had made sexual advances towards her especially when they had to stay back in the office after the office hours. She had also alleged that her team members more particularly one Mr.Sachin Ashtikar was generally spreading rumours about her having a relationship with one Mr.Lokesh Vohra. She had alleged that her team was harassing her with personal questions about her relationship with said Mr.Lokesh Vohra, thereby creating hostile environment for her.

1.6. That the investigators of the petitioner/ Company conducted detailed enquiry who examined 11 witnesses including the persons named by the Res