Present petition is filed by the petitioner being

aggrieved by the order dated 22.05.2010 bearing

No.KE/382/IDM/2009 at Annexure-A passed by the

respondent No.1, in and by which, the respondent

No.1 has granted permission to the Respondent No.2

to proceed to prosecute the petitioner for alleged

3

commission of unfair labour practices under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to

as the 'ID Act, 1947').

Brief facts of the matter;

1.2 That the petitioner/Company has placed

certain policies and process dealing with the employee

related issues providing means and access to the

employees to raise any grievance or other issues

which they may face during the course of their tenure

in the petitioner/Company with a view to combat

instances of harassment in the Company. The

harassment Avoidance Guidelines have also been

placed by the petitioner-Company.

1.3 Petitioner company is a reported Multi

National

Company

in

the

filed

of

Information

Technology & Information Technology Services. That

4

pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in

the case of VISHAKA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF

RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 6

SCC 241, the petitioner/ Company has also set up a

committee which is reconstituted from time to time.

The constitution of the Committee is also intimated to

the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru.

The said Committee consists of four women members

and one male member and one external member

being familiar with the issues relating to sexual

harassment.

1.4. It

is

further

case

of

the

petitioner/Company that the Respondent No.2 was

appointed by the petitioner/Company as a Data Base

Administrator who subsequently became a Systems

Programmer in the Integration Division of the

petitioner/Company. Respondent No.2 was also

5

involved in administering and supervising several

aspects of a project. In the weekly meeting held by

the

petitioner/Company

regarding

performance

assessment during the month of November 2004, the

Respondent No.2 was advised by her direct Manager-

Mr. Rajesh Shenoy to improve her communication

skills and management skills, failing which she would

be awarded Below Expectation Grade. That on

27.11.2004, Respondent No.2 had sent an E-mail

complaining

that

Mr.Rajesh

Shenoy,

her

direct

Manager had showed favoritism towards others in her

team whereas she was subjected to bias and the

respondent No.2 had sought investigation into her

being criticized. That the petitioner/Company had

created a mechanism called "Open-door Mechanism"

which permitted employees to raise the grievances at

their own options which were then investigated by the

petitioner/Company. The guidelines in this regard

6

were also issued by the petitioner/Company setting

out the procedure and process involved in the said

mechanism. That the Respondent No.2 had indeed

raised her issues against her Manager Mr.Rajesh

Shenoy before the "Open-door Mechanism" alleging he

unfairly rewarding her Below Expectation Grade for

the year 2004-2005. The said allegations were

investigated by the petitioner/Company and same

were found to be unsubstantiated.

1.5. That Respondent No.2 in terms of the

Harassment Avoidance Guidelines issued by the

petitioner/Company had raised a sexual harassment

"open door" complaint with her HR Managers alleging

that she was being subjected to sexual harassment by

a co-worker -Mr.Amol Gaitonde whom she claimed

had made sexual advances towards her especially

when they had to stay back in the office after the

7

office hours. She had also alleged that her team

members more particularly one Mr.Sachin Ashtikar

was generally spreading rumours about her having a

relationship with one Mr.Lokesh Vohra. She had

alleged that her team was harassing her with personal

questions about her relationship with said Mr.Lokesh

Vohra, thereby creating hostile environment for her.

1.6. That the investigators of the petitioner/

Company conducted detailed enquiry who examined

11 witnesses includi