IMPORTANT POINT
A written complaint is mandatory for initiating an inquiry under the POSH Act; inquiries conducted without it are illegal.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by Ext.P5 report of the 2nd respondent and Ext.P6 proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent.

2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of the company named “Amstor Information Technology (India) Pvt.Ltd” operating from Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram. His wife was a Director. The 4th respondent was employed as an accountant-cum-manager in the company. She was appointed by the wife of the petitioner on 02.06.1997. Owing to the dereliction of duties, the 4th respondent was terminated from service with effect from 07.11.2017. She approached the Labour Court challenging her termination. The petitioner filed a suit before the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram to restrain the 4th respondent from trespassing into the office of the company. While so, an anonymous complaint was received by the 3rd respondent, which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent. An inquiry ensued and the 2nd respondent submitted Ext.P5 report to the 3rd respondent with the following recommendations:

“(i) The respondent (petitioner herein) be asked to apologize in writing to the complainant for all the professional and personal damages he caused to her through his behavior and remarks.

(ii) The respondent be directed to pay the complainant a lumpsum payment of Rs.19.80 lakhs within 90 days of the date of this order as compensation under the SHWW Act 2013, for the sexual harassment and consequent reputational damage caused to the complainant.

(iii) As the CEO of the company, the respondent be ordered to immediately establish an internal committee within the office, compliant with the SHWW Act 2013 within 30 days of receipt of this order, and report such action as completed to the office of the District Collector failing which the employer that is the respondent may be subject to fine as mandated by the 2013 SHWW Act, and a subsequent claim could render the potential threat of further and more serious actions.”

3. The 3rd respondent acting upon on the said report issued a letter dated 19.09.2018, Ext.P6, asking the petitioner to comply with the aforesaid directions. The petitioner alleges that Exts.P5 and P6 are illegal and liable to be set aside. Following are the reliefs claimed by the petitioner:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rule 7(6) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 as unconstitutional;

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Rule 7(6) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013;

iii) To call for the records relating to Exhibit P5 report and Exhibit P6 communication and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P5 report and Exhibit P6 communication.”

4. The additional 5th respondent was impleaded as per the order dated 11.08.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2019. Taking into account the relief claimed by the petitioner for declaring Rule 7(6) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 (POSH Rules) unconstitutional, this Court suo moto impleaded additional 6h respondent on 10.01.2024. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 producing therewith Exts.P8 to P10 as additional documents.

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appeared on instructions for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned Central Government Counsel.

6. The 2nd respondent is the Local Committee constituted by the 3rd respondent under Section 6 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The 2nd respondent commenced an inquiry as contemplated in Section 11 of the POSH Act based on any anonymous complaint, which was forwarded to it by the 3rd respondent. The