The Human Rights Commission lacks authority to mandate employee reinstatement regarding internal disputes, upholding principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

Petitioner herein is a banking company registered under the Companies Act, and is undertaking banking business, through its various branches, all over the country. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 interim order dated 3.8.2022 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission – the first respondent herein, directing the bank to permit the 2nd respondent to rejoin her earlier post and to regularize her absences.

2. Before the Human Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram – respondent No.1, respondent No.2 has filed a complaint alleging harassment against the petitioner herein. The said complaint has been entertained in HRMP No.3164/11/13/2021/TSR. After considering the averments made in the complaint and the report of the bank, the petitioner herein, Kerala State Human Rights Commission, has passed Ext.P5 interim order on 3.8.2022, which is reproduced hereunder:

“ Interim Order dated 3 rd August, 2022 This petition is filed against the harassment suffered by the petitioner at her work place for the past 6 years. As far as this petition is concerned, Commission primarily taking cognizance only on the allegation of ‘harassment at work place' and its allied matter and other part of the petition will be examined on due course.

The Respondent bank has filed a report before this Commission stating details of general transfer made recently and the terms and condition for appointment also. In such report it is seen that, the respondent bank has simply treated the harassment incident in a light manner and stated that, a copy or the complaint was forwarded to the Internal Complaint Committee under POSH Act, 2013 to inquire into allegations mentioned in the complaint. Committee is conducting the inquiry into the allegation contained in the complaint as per the provisions of POSH Act, 2013.

It is pertinent to note that whatever actions have been taken under the POSH Act, 2013, the petitioner i.e. the victim is still in dark for her future and for her employment security. In this circumstance, a discussion about the true intention of the Sexual Harrassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is very important. This Act was enacted to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at work place and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is also added in said Act that, sexual harassment in violation of the fundamental rights of a women to equality under article 14 and 15 of the Constitution and her right to life and to live with dignity under article 21 of the Constitution and right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, or trade or business with includes a right to safe-environment from sexual harassment. The protection against sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity are universally recognized human rights by international convention and instruments such as Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, which has been ratified on the 25th June 1993 by the Government of India. The POSH Act 2013 is made with the provisions for giving effect to the said convention for protection of women against sexual harassment at workplace. Hence this subject matter is purely under the purview of this Commission.

On perusal of the report submitted by the respondent, it is seen that, nothing has done on the part of the bank to secure even a safe environment for the petitioner for her employment security. Unfortunately it is noted that, the petitioner had sought all possible remedies such as filing of complaint before the Thrissur Town East Police and deposed her statement nothing has been done on the par