The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workplace' under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act and the application of the concept of notional extension to broaden the concept of 'during the course of employment'.

ORDER :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. The writ petition was filed on 12.08.2019 by the applicant seeking cancellation of the show-cause notice dated 10.06.2019 and the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (respondent no.4) of the Sikkim University (respondent no.1) pursuant to the enquiry held in the matter relating to a complaint by the respondent no.5 against the applicant. The applicant has also sought a direction for cancellation of the termination order passed by the respondent no.3 in its 33rd Meeting dated 28.06.2019, as communicated vide its office order dated 28.06.2019. The applicant has sought for further direction upon the respondents not to take any step on the basis of the show-cause notice dated 10.06.2019 and the order of termination pursuant to the report of the respondent no.4. The petitioner has sought a prayer to allow him to join the post of a professor of the Department of Mass Communication, appoint him as the Head of the Department and pay his regular salary including his arrears. On 04.11.2019, notices were issued upon the respondents returnable within three weeks. Services upon all the respondents including respondent no.5 were served. The present application for injunction and stay filed by the applicant on 07.02.2020 is taken up for consideration after the pleadings with regard to the application having been complete. The respondents no.1 to 3 have filed a reply on 27.02.2020 and the petitioner filed his rejoinder thereto on 17.03.2020. The respondent no. 5 has also filed a response to the application for injunction on 12.06.2020.

2. The applicant seeks a direction upon the respondents no.1 to 3 not to give any further effect to the termination order dated 28.06.2019, as communicated vide office order dated 28.06.2019 and to allow the petitioner to join his duties as Professor of the Department of Mass Communication and pay him his salaries until final disposal of the case. The respondents no.1 to 3 opposes the said prayer of the applicant. They submit that the matter dealt by the respondent no.3 was done by following due process of law and adequate opportunity was given to the applicant. The respondents no.1 to 3 also submit that as the respondent no.5 still remains a student of the same Department, reinstating him would make the victim vulnerable and create a hostile atmosphere. The averments made by respondents No.1 to 3 have also been disputed in the rejoinder filed by the applicant. The respondent no.5 in her reply states that the show-cause notice dated 10.06.2019 was issued on the same day; the impugned order terminating him was issued on 28.06.2019 and the applicant preferred the writ petition only on 12.08.2019, after nearly two months. Even then, the applicant did not prefer any stay application along with the writ petition and it was only on 07.02.2020 that the present application was filed after five months. It is averred that, therefore, the purpose of filing the application is solely to delay the matter and, in fact, no urgency exists.

3. Heard Mr. Kalol Basu, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K.T. Gyatso, on behalf of the respondents.

4. The primary ground urged by Mr. Basu was that the entire enquiry conducted by the respondent no.4 was without jurisdiction, as admittedly, the alleged incident of sexual harassment purportedly had taken place at a hotel during a marriage function and the same does not fall within the definition of “workplace” as per the existing law. Mr. Basu has taken this court to the definition of “workplace” in section 2(o)(vi) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter „the said Act?) as well as definition of “employer” in section 2(g) emphasising on sub-section (iv) thereof. Mr. Basu also relied upon Regulation 2(o) and 2(c) of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women