Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
Union of India and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Rema Srinivasan Iyengar and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 10689, 24290, 4339 of 2019, W.M.P. Nos. 4868 and 11170 of 2019
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 - Section 3(2)(iii)(iv)(v) - General Clauses Act, 1891 - Section 27 - Jurisdiction of Local Complaints Committee - Registrar and Controller General of Trade - Sexual harassment - counsel appearing for the complainant drew attention of this Court to Section 2 (g) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 - In relation to any department undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or unit of the appropriate Government or a local authority, the head of that department undertaking, establishment enterprise institution office branch or unit or such other officer as the appropriate Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may by an order specify in this behalf - In any workplace not covered under sub-clause (i), any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of workplace - For the purposes of this sub-clause "management" includes the person or board or committee responsible for formulation and administration of policies for such organization - In relation to workplace covered under sub-clauses person discharging contractual obligations with respect to his or her employees - In relation to a dwelling place or house, a person or household who employs or benefits from employment of domestic worker, irrespective of the number, time period or type of such worker employed, or the nature of employment or activities performed by the domestic worker – Held, Constitution of an Internal Committee for enquiry into sexual harassment allegations was not warranted in instant case - However, having formed the Committee, the defiant attitude of the complainant in not attending Internal Committee hearing and the metamorphosis of the original complaint into a sexual harassment one before Local Committee expose real intentions of the complainant - Complainant was well aware of Internal Committee and ought to have faced it, had her complaint been true - Instead, approaching Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and giving a different picture there, are all perplexing – Thus decision of Internal Committee in not taking cognizance of Local Committee order was reasonable - Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench had erred in concluding that petitioner was the employer and therefore Internal Committee would not have any relevance - In instant case, the Local Committee gave an erroneous decision with a non speaking order which is also ex parte - Complainant it appears, made a futile attempt to settle her personal score with the petitioner - Every office has to maintain a certain decorum and women employees cannot be allowed to go scot free without completing their assignments - Administrative Head or Chief has every right to extract work and he or she has his or her own discretion and prerogatives - If a woman employee is discriminated against due to her inefficiency or for any other official reasons, the recourse for her is not the one taken by this complainant - Though Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 is intended to have an equal standing for women in work place and to have a cordial workplace in which their dignity and self respect are protected it cannot be allowed to be misused by women to harass someone with an exaggerated or nonexistent allegations - Petitions are closed
ORDER :
R. Hemalatha, J.
1. The brief facts to go through quickly are that the petitioner Mr. V. Natarajan in WP. No. 24290 of 2019 (henceforth referred as petitioner) was the Deputy Registrar of Trade Mark & GI, in Chennai and one Mrs. Rema Srinivasan Iyengar, Assistant Registrar (henceforth referred as complainant) preferred a complaint dated 02.12.2013 against him to the Registrar and Controller General of Trade Marks and GI and Patents and Design. The complaint basically was on the high handedness of the petitioner and the hurt to her self respect due to his arrogant behaviour. The Registrar and Controller General of Patents (2nd writ petitioner in W.P. No. 10689 of 2019) on his part responded vide his letter dated 16.07.2014 constituting an Internal Committee on sexual harassment at work place. Subsequently, the complainant preferred another complaint dated 30.06.2015 in which she had narrated many incidents about the rude behaviour of Mr. V. Natarajan. In this complaint, which was not different from the earlier one, she had mentioned the word 'sexual harassment' repeatedly. Subsequently, the complainant also wrote a letter to the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women stating her apprehension that the Internal Committee would not render justice to her and that all the members were subordinate to the petitioner, and therefore her complaint to be referred to the Local Committee. On the date of proceedings (17.02.2016) of Local committee, constituted by the Social Welfare Department (Tamil Nadu State Government) the complainant appeared and gave a written complaint, while the petitioner did not present himself, though he had given reasons for his non-appearance. In the meanwhile, the Director of Ministry of commerce and Industry also appointed one Smt. Sunita Yadav, Director, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry as the Chairperson of the Sexual Harassment Committee vide its letter dated 22.12.2015. This was in response to the objections of the complainant on the composition of the Internal Committee. On 30.12.2015, the District Social Welfare Officer forwarded the letter of the aggrieved complainant to the Controller General of Trade Marks requesting to expedite the enquiry on her complaint, but since it was not allegedly acknowledged, the District Social Welfare Officer conducted an enquiry on 17.02.2016 after obtaining a written complaint from the complainant which was hand written and elaborate in nature. The Proceedings of the said enquiry was intimated vide letter dated 25.02.2016 and it found that prima facie case is made out under Sec. 3(2)(iii)(iv)(v) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Hence, the Local Committee recommended an immediate detailed departmental enquiry against the petitioner by his employer. The petitioner had replied to the District Social Welfare Officer on 28.04.2016 stating that he also ought to have been heard and also that two parallel proceedings cannot be construed as legally valid. The complainant vide her letter dated 16.11.2016 objected to the new Internal Committee also, stating that except for the Chairperson who was changed, the others remained the same. She felt that no justice could be expected from the Committee and therefore, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in OA/310/00340/2017 to declare that the constitution of the Internal Committee is invalid. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench concluded that Local Committee had already conducted a preliminary enquiry and that the Internal Committee formed by the employer is against law due to the sole reason that the petitioner himself was the Head of the Department and therefore a complaint against him can be enquired into only by the Local Committee. The appeal against this order in RA.301/00015/2018 by the petitioner was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. The Writ Petit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
