Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S.P.GARG, J.
LINDA EASTWOOD - Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - Respondents
W.P.(CRL.) 1904/2013, CRL.M.A.Nos.17357/13, 18718/13, 19532/13, 3647/15 & 9487/15
Decided on : 23.12.2015
Sexual Harassment - Workplace - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 4, Section 2(n)(v) - Section 2
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee, filed a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. The Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) conducted multiple proceedings and arrived at conflicting conclusions. The original record of the proceedings was not made available to the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the findings of both the initial and reconstituted ICCs were flawed due to procedural irregularities, bias, and conflict of interest. It ordered a de-novo enquiry by a reconstituted committee to ensure justice.
Issues: Procedural irregularities, bias, conflict of interest, jurisdiction, non-joinder of necessary party
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fair and unbiased procedures in handling complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace. It highlighted the importance of impartial, independent, and unbiased investigations, and the necessity to avoid undue influence and conflicts of interest.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and a reconstituted committee was ordered to conduct a de-novo enquiry into the complaint of sexual harassment. The respondent was prohibited from intervening in the proceedings of the committee.
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner X (assumed name). It is contested by the respondents.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Undeniably, X is employed with M/S.Bridge & Roof Co.(India) Ltd. under the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises and is working in the said institution for the last about 33 years. She lodged a complaint of continued sexual harassment for two years as per the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short the Act) and filed a complaint before Internal Complaint Committee under Section 4 of the Act (in short ICC / respondent No.2).
3. By an Office Order dated 01.09.2011, ICC comprising Mrs.J.Raha (Chairperson), Mrs.L.Alen, Mrs.Janet Anthony, Mrs.Pranati Mondal, and Mrs.Amrita Sen as its members was constituted. By an order dated 17.04.2013, after Mrs.J.Raha’s resignation from the post of Chairperson on 15.03.2013, next senior most member of the committee i.e. Mrs. Linda Alen was permitted to act as its Chairperson. X’s complaint against Mr.M.K.Singh was dealt with by ICC. On 20.04.2013, the complainant deposed before the committee in the enquiry held by it. On 20.05.2013 Mrs.Roma Sengupta, Member ICC, visited the company, discussed the matter with 13 individuals including the complainant and alleged offender and came to the opinion that the detailed enquiry was necessary to arrive at a tangible conclusion. The ICC thereafter made a detailed enquiry into the matter and forwarded the report to the employer on 29/31.08.2013. In the meantime Mr.M.K.Singh was given additional charge of CMD by Govt. of India on 30.08.2013. He reconstituted / formed a new ICC on 13.09.2013. The new committee initiated its proceedings on 31.10.2013 on X’s complaint and she was asked to participate in it. She was summoned to appear before the committee on 13.11.2013.
4. The instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner X on 12.11.2013. Subsequent to that, during pendency of the writ petition the reconstituted committee vide its comprehensive proceedings conducted on 23.11.2013 unanimously came to the conclusion that “Mr.M.K.Singh has erred in using impolite language to X time and again, may be in connection with work related issues only and enabled some undesirable elements to entangle him in such “sexual harassment issues” and to take undue advantage of the situation as he has been implicated in the instant case”. On 28.11.2013, report of the findings of the ICC was sent to the concerned Ministry. By a letter dated 19.12.2013 information / clarification was sought from the Presiding Officer of ICC as the final conclusion arrived at by it was not unambiguous and specific. The Presiding Officer vide her letter dated 27.12.2013 responded to the said letter. Seemingly the findings have since been accepted by the concerned ministry as communicated vide its letter dated 27.02.2014.
5. Record reveals that the first committee deliberated on X’s complaint on 10.05.2013 and decided unanimously to have preliminary investigation into the matter and also to record the statements of the complainant and the accused under appropriate provisions of the Act. The committee in its preliminary investigation found that there was prima facie case made out towards sexual harassment at the workplace against Mr.M.K.Singh. Intimation was sent to both the complainant and the accused under Section 2 (n)(v) of the Act. In its proceedings conducted on 10.07.2013, it was recorded that the complainant had already been transferred to a new department by the management. The committee decided to interrogate the witnesses available at the office. Accordingly, on 10.07.2013 the committee examined Mr.D Adhikari, Mr.S.Chaki, Mrs.Namrata Mehta, Mrs.Pranati Mandal, Mrs.Sabita Mittra, Mr.Prabhat Purk
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
