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 “disciplinary matters” which is inclusive of definition of “service matters'" as contemplated under Section 3(q) of the A.T.Act,1985. For these cumulative reasons, this petition is not maintainable before this court.

JUDGMENT :

By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has urged to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to resolve her grievance in consonance with the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

2. The petitioner joining at the Agricultural Research Service under Indian Council of Agricultural Research Centre [ICAR] was posted at ICAR Complex for North Eastern Hills Region, Tripura Centre. During her service she submitted a complaint on 05.12.2018 alleging sexual harassment as contemplated under Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [for brevity, here-in-after referred to as Act of 2013]. Internal Complaints Committee submitted report wherein the Committee recommended the exoneration of respondent No.6. Against such recommendation, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18(1) of the Act of 2013. Since the said statutory appeal is not disposed off, the petitioner has approached this court by way of invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying following reliefs:

“In the premises aforesaid, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship may be graciously pleased to:

(i) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the respondents and each of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, directing the respondent no. 3 to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 18(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 within time frame, as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court;

(ii) Issue NISI Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ/writs and/or order/orders, direction/ directions in the nature of certiorari calling for the entire records from the custody of respondents no. 3 and 4 and after hearing may please pass necessary order in this regard and may please direct the appellate authority to accept the additional ground on the report of the external committee (Annexure 13)”

3. There is no dispute that ICAR is a Central Government Organization in view of the notification of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions [Department of Personnel and Training], notification dated 20th April, 1987 published in the Gazette of India extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (I). By this notification, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [for short, A.T.Act of 1985], the Government has notified that respondent No.2 herein will fall within the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, CAT].

4. At the very threshold, Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asstt. Solicitor General had raised a preliminary objection in regard to the jurisdiction of this court to grant the reliefs as sought for by the petitioner. Learned Asstt. S.G. firmly contended that the grievances of the petitioner tantamount to “service matters” and in view of notification under Section 14(2) of the A.T. Act, the appropriate forum was the CAT being the court of first instance for the purpose of adjudication of disputes relating to “service matters”.

5. Since a question of maintainability has been raised, this court asked Mr. Somik Deb, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to argue the case on the question of maintainability and with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis, the matter was heard on the question of maintainability of this petition.

5.1 In order to delve into the said question posed before this court for decision, the law relating to sexual harassment of women at workplace as emerged from the case of ‘Vishaka & Ors. Vrs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 241, needs little discussion. The apex court in Vis