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 Act.

JUDGMENT

Akil Kureshi; CJ.:--

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th May 2021 passed in WP(C) No.243/2021. A short prayer of the petitioner for expeditious disposal of her appeal against the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC” for short) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act of 2013”), has run into jurisdictional debate. In order to decide whether this seemingly innocuous prayer of the petitioner can be granted by the High Court, we shall have to cross the threshold question of maintainability of her petition.

[2] As briefly as possible, the relevant facts may be narrated :

The petitioner is employed as a Scientist in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), a Government of India organization. The respondent No.6 is the Joint Director of the same organization (hereinafter to be referred to as “the private respondent”). On 5th December 2018, the petitioner made a complaint to the Director of ICAR against the respondent No.6 making detailed allegations of her mental and physical harassment by the said respondent. She gave details of certain incidents during which according to her, the behaviour of the private respondent was abusive. In short, this complaint was in the nature of sexual harassment at the workplace by the private respondent. The complaint of the petitioner was thereupon placed before the ICC. Under a communication dated 9th April 2019, a copy of the report submitted by the Committee was furnished to the petitioner. In the report, the ICC had exonerated the private respondent of all charges. The petitioner had several issues with respect to the report of the Committee. She, therefore, filed an appeal under Section 18 (1) of the Act of 2013 on 12th July 2019. Despite reminder from the petitioner since this appeal was not disposed of, she filed the above mentioned petition in which she had requested for a direction for early disposal of the appeal.

[3] This petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment holding that the proceedings and the report of the ICC has to be treated as a service matter, more so when the private respondent is the employee of the ICAR. Referring to the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the said Act of 1985”), the learned Single Judge formed an opinion that the subject matter of the writ petition can be entertained by the Administrative Tribunal set up under the said Act and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, the High Court at the first instance, would not entertain the writ petition. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner falls within the ambit of “disciplinary matters” as referred to in the definition Section 3 (q) of the Act of 1985.

[4] It is this view of the learned Single Judge which the petitioner, has questioned in this writ appeal. Appearing for the appellant-original petitioner learned senior counsel Mr. Somik Deb raised two folds contentions. His firs