The withdrawal of a complaint of sexual harassment does not nullify the enquiry proceedings, and leniency in such cases would send the wrong message to society, particularly to women employees.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned Judge made in W.P.No.27088 of 2017 dated 06.09.2019 and allow the above writ appeal.)

N. Mala, J.

Assailing the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27088 of 2017 the writ appeal is filed. The learned Single Judge set aside the Award dated 15.09.2017 in I.D.No.664 of 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai by the impugned order.

INTRODUCTION:-

2. The issue to be decided in the writ appeal relates to a complaint of sexual harassment by a female employee against the appellant. The constitution provides for gender equality and it is also a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and promote the dignity of women. In the wake of Modernization Education etc. women are no longer confined to home and hearth. Women are competing with men in every field and hence it is the duty of every employer to safeguard and protect women in their work place. Even before any civil or penal law providing for protection of women at work place was enacted the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the path breaking Judgment in Vishaka’s case (1997 (6) SCC 241) laid down guidelines for protection of women against sexual harassment at work place. The guidelines were issued invoking the power vested in the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to fill up the legislative gap. After more than a decade later “The Sexual Harassment of Women in Work Place (Protection, Prevention and Redressal) Act, 2013 was passed. The avowed objective of the Act is to protect, prevent and redress the grievance of women against sexual harassment at work place.

THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

3. The respondent company is engaged in the business of Boiler Fabrication and it has a factory at Poonamallee, Chennai. The appellant was appointed as a Senior Welder in the respondent company on 01.01.2007 and was subsequently regularized after two years of service. The appellant as a Senior Welder was working in a supervisory cadre with a team of personnel consisting of 12 welders and 5 trainees working under him. The appellant was the Team Leader and was in-charge of the work assigned to him. The respondent company had a large number of women employees.

4. On 23.04.2010 one Ms.D.Nathiya, who was one of the team member of the appellant filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment by the appellant. As the complaint related to sexual harassment and as such serious in nature, the respondent company constituted a preliminary enquiry committee comprising 4 top level executives including one woman member. The said committee conducted a detailed enquiry and filed it’s findings on 30.04.2010, wherein it found the appellant guilty of the complaint. A charge sheet was issued on 13.05.2020 for the misconduct of unauthorised absence for 10 days [14(e)], disrespectful conduct against co- worker [14(h)] and sexual harassment and sexual favour from women co-workers [14(i)] of the Model Conduct. The appellant submitted his reply on 20.05.2010, but being unsatisfied with the explanation the respondent company decided to conduct a domestic enquiry, for which purpose an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The notice of enquiry was issued to the appellant on 31.05.2010 calling upon the appellant to appear before the enquiry officer on 11.06.2010. In spite of sufficient opportunities the appellant did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and therefore the appellant was set exparte and the respondent company was directed to let-in evidence to substantiate the charges against the appellant. The respondent company examined witnesses on its side and also marked Ex.M1 to Ex.M14 in support of its case. The complainant sent a letter dated 20.05.2010 to the respondent company and also to the appellant stating that she was withdrawing her complaint against the appellant. It is to be pointed out here that the withdrawal of the complaint