The LCC has exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into sexual harassment complaints against an 'employer', defined broadly to include those holding managerial roles, thereby reinforcing workplace safety provisions.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. This case traces the ordeal of a woman employed on probation at the Sahitya Akademi, India’s national academy of letters. She alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment at the hands of its Secretary. Taking the view that the Akademi’s Internal Complaints Committee, [“ICC”] lacked jurisdiction, she approached the Local Complaints Committee., [“LCC”] Soon thereafter, while her grievance was pending consideration, her services were abruptly terminated. The Akademi, for its part, contends that her probation ended upon an assessment of her suitability and that the discharge was in accordance with the terms of contract of employment. The present proceedings, therefore, turn on two interlinked questions: whether the LCC had exclusive jurisdiction to examine the complaint, and whether the Petitioner’s discharge can withstand judicial scrutiny in light of her status as a probationer. More than a service dispute, the case speaks to wider concerns of workplace dignity for women and the responsibility of institutions in addressing allegations of sexual harassment.

2. For ease of reference, the Complainant will hereinafter be referred to as the “Petitioner”, while the individual against whom the allegations have been levelled will be referred to as the “Secretary”. Sahitya Akademi shall be referred to as the “Akademi”.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

3. The Petitioner, a native of Assam, was appointed on probation as Editor (English) in the Akademi on 15^th February, 2018. She states that, from the outset, her professional journey was marred by persistent sexual harassment at the hands of the Secretary. She alleges that the harassment took multiple forms, including unwelcome physical and sexual contact, sexually explicit remarks, and acts amounting to sexual assault. She further states that these advances were accompanied by threats of adverse consequences if she resisted demands for sexual favours. In addition, she contends that she was singled out and harassed on account of her ethnicity, being an Assamese woman.

4. The Petitioner lodged a complaint before the LCC constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013., [“the POSH Act”] The LCC, by its orders dated 16^th December, 2019 and 16^th January, 2020, found a prima facie case to proceed, holding that the post of ‘Secretary’ fell within the definition of “employer” under Section 2(g) of the POSH Act. Consequently, it recommended interim relief to the Petitioner in the form of three months’ paid leave.

5. The Petitioner thereafter approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 1103/2020, alleging non-compliance with the LCC’s directions and seeking enforcement of its recommendations. By interim orders dated 29^th January, 2020 and 05^th March, 2021, this Court stayed the inquiry pending before the LCC. At the same time, on multiple occasions, including on 13^th February, 2020; 26^th February, 2020 and 16^th March, 2020, the Court directed the Akademi to pay the Petitioner her salary and deemed her status to be on paid leave. These interim directions were intended to ensure that, pending adjudication, the Petitioner was not left without subsistence or financial protection.

6. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the Akademi issued an Office Memorandum dated 14^th February, 2020, [“the Discharge OM”] terminating the Petitioner’s services and, shortly thereafter, discontinued the payment of her salary with eff