Defining the Employer : Kerala High Court Clarifies ICC Jurisdiction in Harassment Probes

In a significant judicial clarification regarding the power dynamics within institutions, the Kerala High Court has held that an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is empowered to inquire into sexual harassment complaints against an institution's Director, provided they do not hold actual ' employer ' control over the entity's affairs.

The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil K. Narendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muralee Krishna S., rejected the petition filed by the Director of the Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC) , who had contested the jurisdiction of the ICC to investigate a complaint lodged by a woman employee .

The Struggle for Procedural Jurisdiction

The case arose after a complaint of sexual harassment was filed against the Director, Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai, on November 27, 2024 . The ICC subsequently issued a notice for his appearance. The Director, however, contended that under Section 2(g) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( PoSH Act ), he occupied the position of ' employer '. Consequently, he argued that any complaint against him must be heard by a Local Committee (LC) rather than the institution’s own ICC.

His legal team argued that as the Chief Executive Officer, the Director held overall managerial authority, thereby necessitating the involvement of an external body to ensure impartiality. Conversely, respondents maintained that the Director was an appointee of the Executive Committee and lacked the overarching administrative autonomy synonymous with an ' employer ' under the Act.

Legal Distinction: Employee vs. Employer

The core of the dispute rested on the statutory interpretation of sections 2(f) and 2(g) of the PoSH Act . The Court meticulously performed a comparative analysis between these definitions and the Memorandum of Association (MoA) governing the IRTC.

The Bench observed that the IRTC's rules clearly vest control, administration, and management in the General Body and the Executive Committee . Crucially, the Director's management powers were found to be subject to the supervisory oversight of these bodies.

Key Observations

The Court’s reasoning was anchored in the actual exercise of power. In its judgment, the Bench remarked:

• "The overall management of the affairs of IRTC mentioned in Clause 23.2.2 by the Director is subject to the control and supervision of the executive committee and the general body ."
• "In such circumstances, the appellant can only be treated as an employee in IRTC, and therefore, the ICC constituted has the authority to receive and enquire about the complaint."
• "The combined reading of Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the PoSH Act would make it clear that if a complaint of sexual harassment is raised by an employee in the workplace from the hands of another employee , then the matter has to be enquired into by the ICC."

Verdict and Implications

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal , affirming that the Director's status remains that of an employee , thus validating the jurisdiction of the ICC. The judgment serves as a pivotal precedent, clarifying that nomenclature alone—such as "Director" or "Head of Institution"—cannot be used to deflect the jurisdiction of internal grievance mechanisms unless the individual possesses genuine, unbridled control over the organization's administration.

For institutions across Kerala and beyond, this decision emphasizes that the internal mechanism afforded by the PoSH Act remains the primary forum for grievance redressal, ensuring that administrative hierarchy does not evolve into a shield against accountability in cases of workplace harassment.