Judicial review of ICC inquiries under the PoSH Act is limited to ensuring procedural fairness, allowing flexible application of natural justice suited to complaint sensitivity without imposing rigid evidentiary standards.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai dated 11.12.2016 made in Standing Order Appeal No.1 of 2018.

2. The above Standing Order Appeal has been preferred by the respondent to set aside the recommendations of Internal Complaints Committee of the petitioner's company furnished to him on 30.08.2018.

3. The respondent joined in the petitioner's company as an Associate General Manager in pursuant to the appointment letter dated 28.03.2016. The petitioner's company has got Internal Complaints Committee (in short “ICC”) constituted under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short “PoSH Act”) in order to look into the complaints arising under the Act. The members of the ICC has been constituted in terms of the commissions of the Act.

4. The respondent was working as a Service Delivery Manager in the first respondent company since the year 2016. The respondent has been brought to enquiry before ICC twice within a span of few years of his appointment. There was an allegation of sexual harassment against him in the year 2017 and on an enquiry made by ICC, he was found guilty for his inappropriate behaviour under the PoSH Act. Even thereafter the petitioner company has received many sexual harassment complaints against the respondent from many women who are working under him. The respondent held a supervisory post under the designation “Service Delivery Manager” and several employees work under his supervision. The safety of women employees is the utmost concern of the petitioner's company and it endeavours to create a safe and conducive workplace for women.

5. During the year 2018 one of the women employee by name “A” (hereinafter called as first complainant) had alleged that the respondent indulged in an unwelcome physical contact by hovering close to her when she was seated. During enquiry, the said complainant disclosed that such contact would take place even when the respondent had no connection with the project at work. The other staff by name “B” (hereinafter called second complainant) alleged that the respondent had verbally harassed her by repeatedly asking her physical measurements and making her to feel extremely uncomfortable. She had stated that the respondent had leaned closed to her, touched her shoulder and asked her to remove her garment for the purpose of measurement. The other complainant by name “C” (hereinafter referred as third complainant) had complained that the respondent was inquisitively asked her about her menstrual cycles. On receiving the complaints from the complainants 1 and 2, enquiry was initiated and at the end of the enquiry, ICC found that the behaviour of the respondent was highly in appropriate and it amounted to sexual harassment.

6. The ICC has made the following recommendations:

“ 1. Along with a final warning letter, the Respondent to be made an individual contributor – should not be given a supervisory role; and his work location to be limited to India only.

2. He will not be eligible for a pay rise or any other related benefits for the next two years.”

7. Aggrieved by the above recommendations, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Labour Court and the Labour Court had reversed the findings of the ICC by holding that the respondent was not given with fair opportunity of hearing and consequently set aside the harassment complaints. As the Principal Labour Court has not properly appreciated the facts made before it, the petitione