Absence of a written complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act nullifies the validity of the inquiry and violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

The above-captioned appeal has been preferred, challenging the judgment dated 03.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 39915 of 2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. By the above judgment, the report dated 22.08.2018 of the Local Committee ("LC" for the sake of brevity) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act, 2013 ("PoSH Act" for the sake of brevity) and the communication dated 19.09.2018 issued by the District Collector were held to be illegal and ultra vires of the provisions of PoSH Act and the same were quashed.

2. Short facts of the case are as under:

2.1. The 1st respondent herein is the Managing Director of a Company by name "Amstor Information Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd." The said Company is having its operation at Technopark at Thiruvananthapuram. His wife was also a Director of the said Company. The appellant herein was employed as an Accountant cum Manager in the Company, and she was appointed by the wife, who was one of the Directors, on 02.06.1997. It appears that the appellant was terminated from service with effect from 07.11.2017.

2.2. The appellant approached the Labour Court and challenged the termination order. Immediately thereafter, the 1st respondent instituted a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking to interdict the appellant from trespassing into the office of the Company. It appears that in the meantime, a complaint was forwarded to the 4th respondent, District Collector, raising certain allegations against the 1st respondent. The same was forwarded by the District Collector to the Local Committee constituted under the PoSH Act.

2.3. An enquiry was conducted by the Committee, and a report, which is produced as Ext.P5 in the Writ Petition, was submitted before the District Collector.

In the said report, the following recommendations were made:

"(i) The respondent be asked to apologize in writing to the complainants 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."

2.4. On the basis of the said report, the District Collector issued Ext.P6 letter dated 19.09.2018 calling upon the 1st respondent to comply with the aforesaid directions.

2.5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid letter and communication issued, the 1st respondent approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

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 rep