Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Monga, J.
Dr. Neelam Rani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 25679 of 2022
Decided On : 11-11-2022
Sexual Harassment - Workplace - The court refrained from directly entertaining the writ petition under extraordinary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail her remedy in accordance with The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Veterinary Surgeon, alleged that she was sexually harassed by a junior colleague at the workplace and sought action against him. Despite multiple applications and representations, no action was taken. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to take stringent action against the alleged harasser.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 provides a comprehensive statutory redressal mechanism for cases of sexual harassment at the workplace. The court refrained from directly entertaining the writ petition under extraordinary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail her remedy in accordance with the said Act.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged sexual harassment at the workplace, the neglect of the respondents to take action, and the petitioner's plea for a mandamus to direct stringent action against the alleged harasser.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the existence of the comprehensive statutory redressal mechanism provided by The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and refrained from directly entertaining the writ petition under extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail her remedy in accordance with The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. (Oral) - Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take stringent action against respondent No.5, in accordance with The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
2. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that she is posted as Incharge of Government Veterinary Hospital, Manawali as Veterinary Surgeon. Respondent No.5 is her junior. He is in the habit of using abusive and filthy language at work place. Petitioner moved an application dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure P-2) for taking action against respondent No.5 but no action was taken. Pursuant to her application dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure P-3) moved before Principal Secretary, an enquiry was marked wherein petitioner was held responsible for not producing any evidence or witness. Petitioner again moved an application dated 24.07.2020 (Annexure P-6) seeking action against respondent No.5. She also moved another application dated 15.09.2020 (Annexure P-7) whereas no action was taken.
3. Petitioner also submitted representation dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) but the same has also not been adverted till date. Hence, the present petition.
4. Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to seek return from any of the respondents as no further proceedings and/or pleadings are required.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was sexually harassed by respondent No.5 and respondents No.2 to 4 have deliberately and intentionally neglected to take any stringent action against respondent No.5. He further submits that sexual harassment at workplace is not only an offence but also a violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Heard.
6. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is a comprehensive legislation to provide for safe, secure and enabling environment to every woman, irrespective of her age or employment status and it also lays down a statutory redressal mechanism. Petitioner has got alternative and efficacious remedy under the said Act. In the premise, this Court, therefore, refrains to directly entertain the writ petition under extraordinary writ jurisdiction qua the averments made in this petition.
7. Dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail her remedy in accordance with law as aforesaid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the statutory redressal mechanism provided by The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)....
Nature of allegations by different victims is almost the same wherein they have been put to inconvenience by the petitioner by means of asking embarrassing question and by his conduct.
Inquiries under the Sexual Harassment Act must be conducted where witnesses reside to ensure fairness, and parties must exhaust appellate remedies before seeking judicial review.
Point of Law : Employment and Service matter - Disciplinary matters - Prohibition of sexual harassment of working women - Jurisdiction - Grievance of petitioner falls within the ambit of “disciplinar....
Allegations of sexual harassment must be addressed to Internal Complaints Committee as the appropriate authority.
The judgment established that allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace should be addressed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, rather than being construed as unfair ....
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.
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
