The status of an institutional head as an employer versus an employee under workplace harassment legislation depends on the governance structure; where management oversight rests with an executive body, the head acts as an employee, falling under the jurisdiction of the institution's internal complaints mechanism.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025, filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The appellant, a retired Senior Principal Scientist of CSIR, New Delhi, has been associated with the Integrated Rural Technology Centre (‘IRTC’ in short) as its Director. On 27.11.2024, a woman employee lodged a complaint alleging sexual harassment against the appellant. The 1^st respondent, acting as the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’ in short), issued Ext.P1 notice dated 03.02.2025, directing the appellant to appear before ICC on 22.02.2025. Contending that by virtue of the definition of employer/Head of Institution under Section 2(g) of the Sexual Harassment of Woman At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘PoSH Act’ for short), a complaint against the employer will lie only before the Local Committee (‘LC’ for short) under Section 6 (1) of the PoSH Act, the appellant approached the 4^th respondent District Collector by filing Ext.P5 representation dated 15.01.2025. By Ext.P6 order dated 21.01.2025, the 4^th respondent forwarded the appellant’s representation to the 5^th respondent District Women and Child Development Officer, directing that appropriate action be taken after considering the complaint and the appellant's objection. During the pendency of Ext.P5 representation submitted by the appellant before the District Collector and Ext.P6 direction issued by him, the 1^st respondent proceeded to issue Ext.P1 notice to the appellant. Claiming that the complaint lodged by the lady staff is solely with an intention to harass the appellant and there is glaring conflict of interest between the appellant and the 1^st respondent, who is in-charge of ICC, which according to the appellant was due to his act of withholding of salary of the 1^st respondent and also raising some allegations of personal grudge, against the lady who had filed complaint against the appellant, in connection with a strike allegedly conducted on 26.11.2024 while the conference meeting of the appellant and 14 other Scientists was going on, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;

“(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing EXHIBIT P1 Summons issued by Respondent No. 1 directing the Petitioner to appear before her on 22.02.2025 as being illegal, void, and without jurisdiction.

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Collector and the District Women and Child Development Officer (Respondents 4 & 5) to take necessary action and ensure that the inquiry, if any, is conducted in accordance with law and by an impartial and competent body.

(iii) Declare that the actions of Respondent No. 1 and the continued inaction of Respondents 2 & 3 (Governing Body and Executive Committee of IRTC) are ultra vires, arbitrary, and unconstitutional”.

3. In the writ petition, respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit dated 23.05.2025 opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Exts.R3 (a) document. To that counter affidavit, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 16.06.2025. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2025, the appellant produced Ext.P7 document in the writ petition. The 5^th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 03.07.2025 opposing the reliefs sought for. The respondents 1 to 3 again filed an additional counter affidavit dated 20.08.2025 producing therewith Exts.R3(b) to R3(i) documents. Along with I.A.No.7 of 2025, the appellant produce