The duty of the employer to provide a safe working environment and the need for an inbuilt internal mechanism to address instances of harassment.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective Respondents.

3. By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking following reliefs:-

a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to take steps to ensure that employers comply with the law on sexual harassment, in letter and spirit;

b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the report dated 17.02.2014 of the committee constituted by the Respondent No. 3 Company and consequently the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 01.05.2014 awarding punishment to the Respondent No. 2;

c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the decision of the Board of Directors dated 03.12.2014 refusing to relook into the punishment given to the Respondent No. 2;

d. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to consider the evidence on record and statement of witnesses and hold that the conduct of the Respondent No. 2 amount to sexual harassment at workplace as defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 1, as well as the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013;

e. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to impose such penalty on the Respondent No. 2 as is commensurate with the serious allegations made against him;

f. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pay the Petitioner compensation as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court;

g. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 not to transfer or assign Respondent No. 2 to the same office as the Petitioner………

4. The facts which are germane for the purpose of deciding this writ petition can be briefly stated as under:

5. On 21st July, 2008 the Petitioner joined IFCI (Industrial Finance Corporation of India) which is now known as IFCI Ltd. Respondent No. 2 was also working in the said Company as General Manager and was immediate superior officer of the Petitioner. A complaint was filed by the Petitioner with the then C.E.O. and M.D. of Respondent No. 3 on 22nd February, 2013, alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment by Respondent No. 2 Mr. Suneet Shukla. It was urged that the CEO and MD should constitute a committee, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 301. A second complaint was again filed on 6th June, 2013 by her since no action was taken on her first complaint dated 22nd February, 2013. She also asked the CEO and MD to constitute a Disciplinary Committee and Internal Complaints Committee to inquire into the allegations which are made by her in her complaints. In view of the said two letters/complaints, which were sent by the Petitioner, a Committee was constituted and a show cause notice was given to the Respondent No. 2, asking him to give his explanation. Presiding Officer was also appointed and then the Petitioner presented detailed complaint before the Committee in which she had cited 25 instances of allegations of sexual harassment made to her by the Respondent No. 2. It will be relevant here to mention that initially i.e. from 21st July, 2008 the Petitioner was working at the Mumbai Regional Office of the IFCI Ltd. and that she started working with the Respondent No. 2 from April, 2011. According to her, the first incident took place in July, 2011 and last incident took place in February/March, 2012. The Petitioner then was transferred to the a