IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the assessment of limitation in sexual harassment cases must consider the entire context of the allegations, including subsequent victimization linked to prior harassment.

JUDGMENT :

Kausik Chanda, J.

The petitioner is an Associate Professor at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. In this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned an order dated March 05, 2024, passed by the local committee, 24-Parganas (North), constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short, the Act of 2013).

2. By the said order, the local committee rejected a complaint filed by the petitioner under the Act of 2013 on the ground of limitation.

3. It appears that the petitioner filed her complaint before the local committee on December 26, 2023, and after receiving the complaint, the local committee issued a notice under the Act of 2013 upon respondent no.7, who subsequently filed his reply denying the allegations made against him by the petitioner. On March 5, 2024, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. On the same date, the local committee by an order dated March 5, 2024, rejected the complaint. The relevant part of the said order dated March 5, 2024, is quoted below :

“Decision with reasons-After perusing the complaint and the reply it is found that the purported complaint narrates the occurrence of a series of alleged incidents of sexual harassment (reflected in paragraph number 8 to 20 of the complaint letter – Annexure-1) with the Complainant.

Whereas the mention of first alleged incident of sexual harassment, said to occur on Sept. 2019, is described in the paragraph number 8 of the complaint letter; the 20th paragraph of the complaint letter contains the description of last incident of alleged sexual harassment that occurred in or around the month of April, 2023.

The incidents occurred after the month of April, 2023, as narrated by the complainant in paragraphs number 21 to 34, do not contain descriptions of such incidents that come under the purview of 'sexual harassment' according to Section-2(n) the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The Local Committee, North24-Parganas, considering the entire complaint and upon hearing of the aggrieved woman on 5th March, 2023, resolved to conclude that the last incident of alleged 'sexual harassment' happened within 30th April, 2023.

But the complaint was filed on 26.12.2024 before the Local Committee, North 24 Parganas, so it is a delayed filing as per provision of Section-9(1) the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Further on 05.03.2024 the Complainant filed an application for condonation of delay citing the reason of "instigating circumstances" at her University wherein she was attempting to resolve it inside the institution. The complainant also submitted on 05.03.2024, a prayer seeking direction for documents from the employer and providing transportation and leave for witness, by annexing the list of witness.

The Local Committee, North 24 Parganas does not satisfy itself with the reasons stated in the written application of the complainant, dated 05.03.2024, for condonation of delay, as the Local Committee does not find any such circumstances which prevented the aggrieved woman to file the complaint before the committee within the prescribed time period as stated in the proviso under Sec. 9 (1) of the SHW Act, 2013.

Hence, the Local Committee, North 24 Parganas, unanimously resolved that the complaint of the aggrieved woman is not acceptable for further proceeding as the complaint is barred by time limit as per provision of Section-9(1) the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.”

4. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the committee has failed to read the complaint in its proper perspective and misdirected itself in concluding that the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation, relying solely on the definition of “sexual harassmen