The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, and the power of condonation of delay should be exercised in line with the purpose and scheme of the SHW Act.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. (Oral)

[Ideally, as this case involved an allegation of sexual harassment at the workplace, the identities of the persons involved ought to have been masked, unless they consented to their disclosure. However, the learned Industrial Tribunal has not done so, and this is a petition under Article 227 emanating from the order of the learned Industrial Tribunal, in which the identities of the complainant and her alleged oppressor already stand disclosed.]

1. The issue in controversy, before me, is whether Section 5¹ of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply to appeals under Section 18² of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("the SHW Act").

2. Respondent 1 accused Respondent 2 of having harassed her, sexually, at the workplace. The complaint was referred to an internal complaints committee of the petitioner which, vide inquiry report dated 24th May 2016, exonerated Respondent 2. Respondent 1 appealed thereagainst, under Section 18 of the SHW Act"), to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal ("the learned IT"). The impugned order, dated 3rd March 2022, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in RCA 343/2016 (Shailja Naqvi v. DB Corp Ltd.) condones the delay of 36 days in the preferring of the appeal.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The petitioner has not chosen to question the jurisdiction or competence of the learned IT to entertain the appeal filed by Respondent 1.

5. The issue in controversy in the present case being only whether the learned IT could have condoned the delay in filing of the appeal, by the respondent, under Section 18 of the SHW Act, no further reference to facts is necessary.

6. The contention advanced by the petitioner, both before the learned IT as well as before this Court, is that, as no provision for condonation of delay is to be found in Section 18 of the SHW Act, and as Section 18(2) uses the word "shall", the learned IT could not have condoned the delay in filing of appeal by the respondent.

7. On this submission, paras 9 to 11 of the impugned order read thus:

"9. After having considered the arguments of both sides, I am of the considered view that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 has come to protect the women from sexual harassment at work place to ensure women's rights for equality and liberty. This is the Act which is for the welfare of the women, to bring the women force to equal status at work place and to protect the sexual harassment may be at work place. This Tribunal is of the considered view that the basic idea to implement this Act has been mentioned in preamble of this Act, which provides:

"An. Act to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. "

10. This Tribunal is of the considered view that by exclusion of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 at work place certainly caused an obstacle to the implementation of rights for equality for the women as a woman might have suffered sexual harassments, may not be in a position for a certain time due to sexual harassment, to raise her grievance within a specific period though as per the provisions of Act which should be in the prescribed period of limitation but certainly the Tribunal has to consider various obstacles which might have been there for the applicant to prefer and to file the present appeal.

11. As per the application, there were various circumstances mentioned as counsel of appellant faced unprecedented family circumstances, including medical circumstances, which have been mentioned in detail in the application. This Tribunal also considered those circumstances and is of the view that it will be in the interest of