The court upheld that appeals under the Sexual Harassment Act must be directed to the designated statutory authority, reinforcing that orders made without jurisdiction are void.

JUDGMENT :

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 12.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8542 of 2024. Appellant was the 5^th respondent in the W.P.(C). Respondents were the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 respectively in the W.P. (C).

2. The W.P. (C) had been filed by the 1^st respondent inter alia seeking to set aside Ext.P17 order dated 15.02.2024 issued by the 4^th respondent (Regional Joint Labour Commissioner). The learned Single Judge had allowed the W.P.(C) and had quashed Ext.P17 order inter alia holding that it was improper on the part of the appellant to prefer an appeal before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner when this Court had in an earlier litigation to which the appellant was a party directed that the appeal had to be considered by the Board of Directors of the 2^nd respondent company. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside of Ext.P17 order of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

3. Brief facts as contended in the W.P.(C) are as follows:

Appellant and 1^st respondent are working as rubber tappers in the Kallala Estate of Kalady Plantation of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala. They are members of different trade unions. The 1^st respondent, in his capacity as a senior tapper reported to the management that the appellant and certain other lady workers were not doing tapping work properly. Consequent to the same, explanations were called for from the appellant and others by the management. Due to the said incident, animosity arose in the appellant against the 1^st respondent which led her prefer a false complaint (Ext.P3) before the Manager stating that she was mentally harassed by the 1^st respondent. It was alleged in Ext.P3 that the 1^st respondent had been mentally torturing her unnecessarily. A show cause notice was issued to the 1^st respondent to which he replied. An enquiry that was conducted by the Manager concluded that there was no mental harassment as alleged. The appellant then preferred another complaint against the 1^st respondent on 30.06.2022 stating that no action had been taken on Ext.P3 complaint. In the said complaint too no specific allegation of sexual harassment was raised. Ext.P6 report was filed by the Manager in the said complaint inter alia stating that no complaint as would fall within the ambit of Sexual harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Reddressal Act, 2013) had been made out in the complaint. In spite of the same, on the direction of the Managing Director, the matter was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). Notwithstanding that no allegation of sexual harassment had been contained in the complaint, the ICC arrived at Ext.P7 report to the effect that the 1^st respondent is guilty of offences under the Sexual harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Reddressal Act, 2013). The Managing Director based on the same, issued a transfer order to the 1^st respondent transferring him to Athirappilly Estate. The 1^st respondent preferred Ext.P9 statutory appeal before the Board of Directors, viz., the employer. Since the said appeal was not being acted upon in time, the 1^st respondent moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25644 of 2023. The said W.P. (C) was disposed of by this Court vide Ext.P10 judgment dated 04.08.2023 directing the 2^nd respondent Board of Directors to consider and pass orders on the appeal in accordance with law within two months. The appellant challenged the said judgment before a Division Bench of this Court by filing Writ Appeal No.1723 of 2023. The same was disposed of on 05.10.2023 by the Division Bench vide Ext.P11 judgment d