Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
MANISH MATHUR
Dev Dutt Pachauri – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 6.
1A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Liberty is granted to petitioner to implead the complainant as opposite party no.7 during the course of day.
3. Issue notice to newly impleaded opposite party no.7.
4. Petition has been filed challenging recommendations dated 01.08.2025 submitted in terms of Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013.
5. At the very outset, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of the fact that recommendations submitted in terms of Section 13 of the Act of 2013 are appealable and therefore, petitioner has an alternative and equally efficacious remedy for filing appeal before the Authority concerned in terms of Section 18 of the Act read with Rule 11 of the Rules framed thereunder.
6. In rebuttal thereof, learned counsel for petitioner submits that Section 18 of the Act of 2013 indicates that primarily an appeal is required to be preferred to the Cou
The court held that complaints under the Sexual Harassment Act must follow established procedural rules, and if norms of natural justice are breached, the recommendations may be invalid despite alter....
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....
The definition of 'service matter' excludes disputes not directly related to the conditions of service, allowing the High Court to entertain appeals regarding sexual harassment complaints under the A....
The terms and conditions of employment of both the petitioner and the respondent No.7 crystallized with the acceptance of the appointment letter dated March 25, 2013 in case of the applicant/writ pet....
The court emphasized that an employer must await the Internal Complaints Committee's recommendation during an inquiry before transferring an employee involved in a sexual harassment complaint, as per....
The limitation period for challenging an adverse disciplinary order begins from the date a statutory representation is decided, not from the original order date, applying the doctrine of merger.
The appellate authority under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act has the implied power to grant interim relief despite the absence of explicit provisions.
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
