JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they are at the behest of the same appellant and between the same parties. Both the appeals involve similar issues.

2. Appellant filed a writ petition being WP No. 4806(W) of 2019 which was disposed of by a judgment and order dated May 3, 2019. Appellant applied for review of the judgement and order dated May 3, 2019 being RVW 128 of 2019 which was dismissed by a judgment and order dated July 4, 2023. The two appeals are directed against the judgement and orders dated May, 2019 and July 4, 2023.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, appellant lodged a complaint under Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 on November 17, 2016 against the private respondent. Proceedings before the Internal Complain Committee (ICC) constituted under the provisions of the Act of 2013 commenced. ICC made a recommendation dated April 31, 2017 under Section 13(3) of the Act of 2013 in respect of such complaint.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, appellant lodged an FIR dated May 22, 2017 with the police station. Such police compliant resulted in a charge sheet. The criminal proceedings are pending.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that, being aggrieved by the recommendation of the ICC, private respondent filed a writ petition being WP 329 of 2017. Appellant also filed a writ petition being WP 15088 (W) of 2017 seeking implementation of the recommendation dated April 21, 2017. Both the writ petitions were heard and disposed of by an order dated July 18, 2017 by granting liberty to the private parties to approach the statutory appellate authority under Section 18 of the Act of 2013.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central) DCLC on July 21, 2017. Such appeal was returned to the appellant on September 12, 2017 claiming that DCLC was not the appellate authority. Aggrieved by such communication, appellant filed a writ petition being WPA 25485(W) of 2017 which is pending.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, appellant received a writing dated February, 19, 2019 issued by the President of the Institute from where the appellant came to know that the private respondent was issued a show-cause notice on September 12, 2018 and that, on consideration of the response of the private respondent to such show-cause notice, the President of the Institute remitted the matter to the ICC with a direction for submission of a fresh report.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the President of the Institute acted without jurisdiction in remitting the matter to the ICC for fresh consideration. He submits that, the order of the ICC is not capable of the review by the employer. In support of his contentions he draws the attention to this Court to the provisions of the Act, 2013. According to him, employer cannot direct ICC to reconsider its decision.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the recommendation of the ICC became binding as against the private respondents since the private respondent did not prefer any appeal against such recommendation. He draws the attention to the Court to the provisions of Section 13 and Section 26 of the Act of 2013 and submits that, since the recommendations of the ICC is binding upon the employer and the employee not taking any steps in terms of such recommendations, both the private respondents and the employer can be proceeded against. He submits that, the recommendations of the ICC require the employer to deduct certain amount from the salary of the private respondent. Such deduction be made by the employer from out of the salary or pensionary benefits receivable by the private respondent.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon (1997) 6 Suprem