SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Akademi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
GNCTD & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1103/2020 & CM Appln. 3668-69/2020, 7648-50/2020, 9969-70/2020, 18690/2020, 23465/2020, 6416/2021, 13630/2021 & 17420/2021
Decided On : 25-10-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ritin Rai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shreya Munoth, Ms. Kritika Bhardwaj, Mr. Ashwin Pantula, Ms. Aditi Rao, Ms. Suhavi Arya, Advocates, for the Appellant, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, Ms. Damini Thaker and Ms. Kamkashi Gupta, Advocates, Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Dhairya Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The employer's duty to provide a safe working environment and the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee were central to the court's decision.

Headnote:

Sexual Harassment - Workplace - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 16

Fact of the Case:

The aggrieved woman, an employee of the Akademi, filed a petition seeking redressal for sexual harassment and wrongful termination of her services. The court addressed the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee, the validity of the termination, and the employer's duty to provide a safe working environment.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Secretary is an employer under Section 2(g) of the Act, and the complaint against him should have been made to the Local Committee, not the Internal Complaints Committee. The termination of the aggrieved woman's services was quashed, and she was reinstated with full back wages and other benefits. The court also directed the Akademi to pay her salary and provide a safe working environment.

Issues: Jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committee, Validity of Termination, Duty of Employer to Provide Safe Working Environment

Ratio Decidendi: The Secretary is considered an employer under the Act, and the Internal Complaints Committee lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against him. The termination was found to be retaliatory and not in compliance with the Act. The employer has a duty to provide a safe working environment and assist in prosecuting complaints of sexual harassment.

Final Decision: The petition by the aggrieved woman was allowed, and the petition by the Akademi was dismissed. The court reinstated the aggrieved woman, quashed the termination, and directed the Akademi to comply with the Act and provide a safe working environment.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - In view of Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the name of the Petitioner in W.P. (C) 1103 of 2020 shall be kept confidential and she would be referred to as the "aggrieved woman " and similarly the name of the officer against whom complaint has been made shall be kept confidential and he would be referred to as the "Secretary ".

2. Further, in order to conceal the identity of the aggrieved woman and the Secretary, the names of the aggrieved woman and the organisation shall be redacted from the copy of the judgment that is uploaded on the website or made available to third parties. The registry is also directed to redact the name of the aggrieved woman and the organisation from the cause title.

3. The aggrieved woman who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1103 of 2020 had originally filed this petition inter alia seeking a direction to the Akademi (for the purposes of confidentiality hereinafter referred to as the "Akademi") to comply with the directions dated 16.12.2019 and 16.01.2020 issued by Local Complaints Committee and to grant her three months paid leave with immediate effect, in addition to the leave she would be otherwise entitled to. She has further sought a direction to the Akademi to comply with Section 19 of the Act and to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs for mental trauma, pain, suffering and emotional distress caused to her.

4. During the Pendency of the petition, because of certain subsequent events, the aggrieved woman sought amendment of the petition, which was allowed and consequently she has, in addition to her earlier prayers sought quashing of the office memorandum dated 14.02.2020 issued by the Akademi terminating her services. She also seeks information about the review committee and the appraisal done with regard to her performance. She also seeks reinstatement to her former position, with continuity of service, full back wages, and other consequential service benefits.

5. The Akademi, by way of its Writ Petition No. W.P. (C) 2546 of 2021 seeks quashing of proceedings initiated by the aggrieved woman before the Local Complaints Committee and also the order dated 16.01.2020 passed by it.

6. The questions that arise for determination in the subject writ petitions are:

    (i) Whether the Secretary is an employer in terms of section 2(g) of the Act?; and

    (ii) Whether the complaint of sexual harassment against the Secretary could have been made only to the Local Committee and not to the Internal Complaints Committee in terms of Section 6(1) of the Act?; and

    (iii) Whether the Internal Complaints Committee was validly constituted in terms of Section 4 of the Act?; and

    (iv) Whether the aggrieved woman made any complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee in terms of Section 9 of the Act?' and

    (v) If the answer to question (iv) is in the negative, then whether the report of the Internal Complaints Committee dismissing the complaint is sustainable?

    (vi) Whether the non confirmation/extension of probation of the aggrieved woman during pendency of the proceedings is sustainable?

    (vii) Whether the Petition by the aggrieved woman is not maintainable as she has not exhausted the alternative remedy of an appeal against the finding of the Internal Complaints Committee?

    7. The aggrieved woman is from one of the north eastern states and claims to have worked with several prestigious publishing houses.

    8. On 26.12.2017, the aggrieved woman was appointed to the post of Editor (English) on probation for a period of two years. As per the letter of appointment during the period of probation her services could be terminated without notice or assigning any reason for the same. The employment is governed by the Akademi (Services) Bye-Laws/Central Civil Services Rules ('Bye-laws').

    9. On 09.02.2018 the aggrieved woman was issued a Provisional Appointment Order confirming her appointment to the post of Editor (Eng

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top