IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M.MANOJ, J
E. SHANAVAS KHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE KOLLAM BAR ASSOCIATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 39539 OF 2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legality of icc constitution under posh act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. importance of understanding workplace definitions (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioner's argument against icc jurisdiction (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. procedural details of the complaint and icc actions (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. counter-arguments regarding icc's capability (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. icc actions regarding workplace definitions (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. 3rd respondent’s claims against icc's legality (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. legal rights and protections under posh act (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. maintainability of writ petition (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. determination of icc's constituted authority (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 11. final judgment on the legality of the actions taken (Para 45) |
JUDGMENT :
The primary issues to be considered in this Writ Petition are the legality of the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’ for short) under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short, the POSH Act), the enquiry conducted by the said committee, and the challenge to the suspension order issued against the petitioner by the Kollam Bar Association.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are members of the Kollam Bar Association, the 1st respondent, which is registered under Section 26 of the Travancore Companies Regulation 1 of 1092 . The 3rd respondent preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent alleging misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The alleged incident occurred on 14.06.2024 at the petitioner's residence, when the 3rd respondent visited the petitioner to discuss the notarisation of a document.
3. It is a matter of fact that the 3rd respondent had also preferred a complaint before the Police, based on which a First Information Report (FIR) was registered alleging offences under Sections 3 54, 354A(1)(i), 354(1)(ii), and 354(1)(iv) IPC . Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint preferred by the 3rd respondent on 15.06.2024, the President of the 1st respondent Bar Association constituted an ICC as provided under Section 4 of the POSH Act.
4. The ICC conducted an enquiry into the alleged misconduct that occurred on 14.06.2024 and submitted a report, marked as Ext.P8. The primary challenge in this petition is against the said report. The remaining reliefs sought are consequential to the report, including the challenge against the suspension of the petitioner from the 1st respondent Association.
5. For the purpose of examining the issues involved, it is necessary to consider Sections 2 (a), 2(f), 2(g), 2(n) and 2(o) as well as Sections 3 , 4 and 9 of the POSH Act.
For convenience, the above Sections are reproduced hereunder:
“2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, —
(a) “aggrieved woman” means—
(i) in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent;
xx xx xx
(n) “sexual harassment” includes any one or more of the following unwelcome acts or behavior (whether directly or by implication) namely:—
(i) physical contact and advances; or
xx xx xx
(v) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature;
(o) “workplace” includes—
xx xx xx
(ii) any private sector organisation or a private venture, undertaking, enterprise, institution, establishment, society, trust, non- governmental organisation, unit or service provider carrying on commercial, professional, vocational, educational, entertainmental, industrial, health services or financial activities including production, supply, sale, distribution or service;
xx xx xx
(v) any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment, including transportation by the employer for undertaking such journey;”
6. The provisions mentioned above constitute the defin
Jose Kuttiyani v. High Court Advocates Association
National Union of Commercial Employees v. MR Meher
Sasidharan v. Peter and Karunakaran and Others
T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363, SC Belgaum and Others
Aureliano Fernades v. State of Goa
Women in Cinema Collective and others v. State of Kerala and Others
Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Others v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.