An appeal can only be filed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 if the Internal Complaints Committee report contains recommendations as per Section 13(3) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Industrial, New Delhi in RCA No. 02/2016. The Ld. Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by Petitioner and held that the same is not maintainable on the ground that the enquiry report of the Internal Complaints Committee does not contain any recommendations as prescribed under Section 13 (3) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The Petitioner seeks the quashing of Internal Complaints Committee Report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee constituted by Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 of the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under Section 4 of the Act.

2. The Petitioner joined Respondent No. 1 as an Assistant Professor in 1996. In 2011, the Petitioner was appointed as Director of Delhi campus of Respondent No.1. Respondent No. 2 who was appointed on contractual basis w.e.f. 27.10.2014 submitted complaint against Petitioner on 03.06.2015. The Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted its report on 09.06.2015 and inter alia held that the petitioner cannot be absolved from the charges of sexual harassment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the enquiry conducted by the ICC preferred an appeal before the Ld. Industrial Tribunal.

3. Ld. Industrial Tribunal after interpreting Section 13 of the act held that since there were no recommendations submitted by ICC, the petitioner has no right to prefer an appeal and hence, it is not maintainable. Respondent No. 1 terminated the services of Petitioner on 16.12.2016.

Contention of the petitioner:

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the principle of natural justice has been blatantly and deliberately ignored by the ICC. The committee also did not follow Rule 7 (4) of the Rules framed under the Act which mandates that the committee shall make inquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has relied upon Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 58.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses were examined even before the complaint was supplied to the petitioner. The copy of the complaint was given to the Petitioner on 23.06.2015 but the Committee had already examined 8 witnesses by that time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the constitution of the committee is itself bad in law. The external member is employed with another sister concern of Respondent No.1 namely "Bhoruka Charitable Trust" and he further reports to Dr. S.D. Gupta, who was authorized to contest the appeal on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner for verbal cross examination of the complainant. Reliance has been placed upon Prof SP Narang vs. University of Delhi bearing WP (C) No. 3705/2002 dated 31.07.2017 and Prof. Bidyug Charaborty v. Delhi University & Ors., 2009(112) DRJ 391 (DB).

Contention of respondent:

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Tribunal erred in holding that the appeal was not maintainable in the absence of any recommendation. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner could not have been terminated till the same is recommended by ICC under Rule 9 of the Rules under the Act.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the sexual harassment law is being misused for harassment and persecution of petitioner. It has been alleged that certain officials conspired against the petitioner and misused the legislation to ensure that the Petitioner is disgraced and thrown out of the organization.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that IIHMR/Respondent no. 1 is