Back
High Court Of Calcutta
SAMARESH BANERJEE, ASIT KUMAR BISI
ALBERT DAVIT LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
ANURADHA CHOUDHURY - Respondent
P. M. A. T. 2770 Of 2003
Decided On : 11/27/2003
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING - STAY - SEXUAL HARASSMENT - CRIMINAL PROCEEDING - PENDING - [ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 CPC] - Whether or not the departmental proceeding, initiated against the plaintiff-respondent relates to the misconduct and insubordination whereas the criminal proceeding initiated by the plaintiff-respondent has been started on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the plaintiff-respondent in bowbazar P. S. on the allegation of sexual harassment and humiliation and since the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding do not relate to the same set of facts, the departmental proceeding against the plaintiff-respondent can well be proceeded with irrespective of pendency of the criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of the written complaint was lodged by the plaintiff respondent with the police.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a Junior Executive in Albert Davit Ltd., faced departmental proceedings initiated by the company for alleged misconduct and insubordination. She filed a suit seeking a declaration that the enquiry was illegal and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the enquiry till disposal of the criminal case she had filed against the defendants for sexual harassment. The Trial Court granted a temporary injunction in her favor.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the departmental proceeding was initiated out of grudge or ill-motive because of the lodging of the written complaint by the plaintiff-respondent with the Police on the basis of which the criminal proceeding was started. The Court also noted that the company had not formed a complaint committee or created an appropriate complaint mechanism for redressal of sexual harassment complaints, as required by the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. The Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in her favor, and that if the temporary injunction was not granted, she would suffer irreparable loss.
Issues: 1. Whether the departmental proceeding could be proceeded with irrespective of the pendency of the criminal proceeding, since they did not relate to the same set of facts? 2. Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in her favor?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that although departmental enquiry and criminal proceeding can proceed simultaneously, in certain cases it may be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. The Court noted that the departmental proceeding was initiated after the plaintiff had lodged a written complaint with the police alleging sexual harassment, and that the company had not formed a complaint committee or created an appropriate complaint mechanism for redressal of sexual harassment complaints. 2. The Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in her favor, as the departmental proceeding was initiated out of grudge or ill-motive and she would suffer irreparable loss if the temporary injunction was not granted.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Trial Court's order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the departmental enquiry till disposal of the suit.
( 1 ) THE instant appeal preferred by the appellant is directed against Order No. 16 dated september 9, 2003 by Shri. P. L. Dutta learned judge 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 225 of 2003. By the order impugned the learned Judge allowed the application for temporary injunction under order No. 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil procedure filed by the plaintiff/respondent Ms. Anuradha Choudhury and restrained the defendants from proceeding with the departmental proceeding initiated by the defendants against the plaintiff by a letter dated november 9, 2002 issued by defendant No. 2 till disposal of the suit.
( 2 ) THE factual matrix leading to the instant appeal may briefly be stated thus. As per case of the plaintiff she has been working for gain in Albert Davit Ltd. , at 15, Chittaranjan avenue, Calcutta since September, 1990 and is holding the post of Junior Executive, Sales promotion Department of the said company. Defendant No. 3 has been engaged as Enquiry officer by defendant No. 2 to conduct a domestic Enquiry against the plaintiff on the false allegation of misconduct and the purported domestic enquiry is being conducted by defendant No. 3. The plaintiff joined the said company in the month of September, 1990, and rendered her service to full satisfaction of the authority throughout the tenure without any blemish. The plaintiff is a well educated lady having good academic background. Defendant no. 1 joined the said company as a Group product Manager in the month of September, 2001 and was provided with the sitting accommodation with the plaintiff in the same a. C. Chamber wherein the plaintiff has been sitting since 1997. Within a very short span of time the plaintiff felt that defendant No. 1 was frantically trying to develop personal and close relation with the plaintiff and taking advantage of loneliness inside the chamber defendant no. 1 intended to insult and outrage the modesty of the plaintiff and started using slang language by exhibiting gestures which badly hampered the privacy and security of the plaintiff. The language being used by defendant No. 1 was provocative and vulgar as a result of which the working environment in the chamber became unsafe. The plaintiff tried to restrain defendant no. 1 by requesting the latter to amend his nature and not to use any vulgar language. In spite of that defendant No. 1 provoked the plaintiff with unwelcome sexual demands by words and gesture. The plaintiff was compelled to stay in the office even after 5 p. m. when all other employees of the company left the office and taking the said advantage defendant No. 1 extended his sexual advance which was refused by the plaintiff as a result of which defendant no. 1 became furious and threatened to oust the plaintiff from the A. C. Chamber. On december 18, 2001, the plaintiff was ousted from the chamber with the aid and assistance of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 all along supported defendant No. 1 and started discussing his sexual life with some other ladies and the plaintiff was compelled to participate 5 in such obnoxious discussion. Defendant No. 2 also expressed his desire to the plaintiff to accompany him after office hours and to spend and drink with him for his mental pleasure. Being annoyed the plaintiff brought the matter to the notice of Mr. A. K. Kothari, Chairman of the Company by the letter dated June 21, 2002. Between August 8 and August 14, 2002 the Company had a meeting at Taj Bengal, calcutta. Defendant No. 1 made continuous 5 efforts to allure the plaintiff to satisfy his ill desire. The plaintiff had to attend the meeting in a conference hall at the behest of defendant no. 1. On August 12, 2002 the plaintiff requested defendant No. 1 to instruct the attendants to switch off the A. C. machine, but in reply defendant No. 1 said: "come close to me, you will start feeling hot. " On August 13, 2002 defendant No. 1 abused the plaintiff in presence of the senior O
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
