O R D E R

% 09.09.2024 CM APPL. 52488/2024 [Exemption from filing typed copies]

1. Allowed, subject to the Petitioner filing true typed/legible and proper font of the annexures within a period of four weeks.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 12641/2024 & CM APPL. 52487/2024 [Stay]

3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that inadvertently an incorrect memo of parties has been filed. He seeks and is granted liberty to file an amended memo of parties, setting out the complete address of Respondent No.1 within two days.

4. The present petition impugns the Judgment/Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-01, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi, dated 27.03.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”].

5. By the Impugned Award, the Appeal filed under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as the “POSH Act”], was partly allowed awarding the Petitioner a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the report of Internal Complaints Committee [hereinafter referred to as “ICC”] of Respondent No.1 dated 29.10.2014 was set aside and the findings of the ex parte inquiry report dated 07.11.2015 were also set aside.

6. The grievance of the Petitioner however stems from the fact that despite all findings being in favour of the Petitioner, the directions qua reinstatement with full back wages and consequential monetary and other benefits as well as continuity of service was not granted to the Petitioner and the Petitioner was given liberty to seek the same from the concerned Court.

6.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this finding of the learned Labour Court suffers from an infirmity. He submits that the termination of the Petitioner was stayed by the learned Labour Court by its order dated 09.02.2016. Thereafter, the said order culminated in the Impugned Award, through which the findings of the Inquiry Committee of the ICC of Respondent No.1 were set aside. Thus, the relief of reinstatement in the Respondent No.1/Company should have been granted.

6.2 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that after the complaint was made by the Petitioner under the POSH Act, the Petitioner was terminated from her services with Respondent No. 1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the complaint also resulted in an FIR being registered against Respondent No.2, pursuant to which the said Respondent No. 2 was convicted under the provisions of Section 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860 by an order dated 16.09.2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Learned Counsel further submits that thereafter Respondent No.2 has absconded from this country being a Sri Lankan national. Thus, it is contended that the Petitioner has for the last 8 years been pursuing all remedies against the Respondents.

6.3 Learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner had averred that she was not permitted to re-join her employment despite the order of termination being stayed by the learned Labour Court, during the pendency of the proceedings. Learned Counsel seeks to rely upon an e-mail dated 07.03.2016 wherein the Respondent No.1 directed the Petitioner not to enter the premises of the Respondent No.1 to submit that the Respondent No.1 has remained unemployed since her termination in November, 2015 and is unemployed even today.

7. It is thus contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Impugned Award by not granting the consequential relief of reinstatement with back wages is not only contrary to the principles of the POSH Act but that the Court had the power to do so in terms of Section 15 and 18 of the POSH Act.

8. The matter requires further examination.

9. Issue Notice.

9.1 On steps being taken, let Notice be served to the Respondents via all modes including electronically. An affidavit of service be filed within a week.

10. Counter-Affidavit be filed wi