Delhi High Court Clarifies the Limits of Post-Termination Complaints in Sexual Harassment Cases
Judgement Given On : 17/07/2019
In a judgment rendered on July 17, 2019, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Rashi v. The Union of India addressed the issue of filing a sexual harassment complaint as an afterthought following the termination of employment. The Court emphasized the need for due diligence and adherence to the law, holding that unfounded allegations of sexual harassment made after termination would not be tolerated.
Factual Background
The case involved a petitioner, Rashi, who filed a writ petition challenging her termination from employment and sought action under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“the Act”). Rashi had been appointed as a Data Entry Operator on a contract basis. Her complaint alleged sexual harassment and misconduct by her superiors and colleagues. Notably, she filed her complaint only after her termination, raising questions about the timing and credibility of her claims.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that sexual harassment was rampant in the workplace, citing various instances of misconduct. She contended that one incident, in which the Chairman of the Council had allegedly brushed against her inappropriately, had not been detailed in her initial complaint. Still, she believed it was a deliberate act of misconduct.
In response, the respondents, including the Union of India, argued that Rashi was not an employee of the Council or the Department but was deployed through an outsourcing agency. They asserted that Rashi’s termination was justified due to her irregular attendance and habitual tardiness. The respondents alleged that Rashi’s complaint was a retaliatory move after her termination, suggesting that she had a backing of a senior officer from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which influenced her behaviour.
Key Observations
The Delhi High Court made several critical observations:
- Pattern of Irregularity: The Court noted that Rashi had repeatedly been instructed to be punctual and dedicated to her duties, yet she continued to exhibit a casual approach to her job. Attendance records confirmed her irregularity.
- Warning and Termination: Rashi was warned via circular to improve her punctuality, but she failed to comply. Consequently, her termination was justified based on her habitual late attendance and non-punctuality.
- Questionable Timing: The Court highlighted that Rashi’s sexual harassment complaint emerged only after her termination, raising doubts about the timing and motivation behind her allegations.
- Misuse of Laws: The Court expressed concern about the misuse of laws protecting women from harassment, emphasizing the need for genuine complaints and adherence to due process.
Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed Rashi’s writ petition, concluding that she had not been on the respondents’ payroll as an employee. Therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to direct her reinstatement. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to workplace norms and punctuality, highlighting the consequences of habitual irregularity and tardiness.
The case serves as a reminder of the significance of genuine, timely complaints in addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. It underscores the need for due process and adherence to the law. This judgment aims to deter the misuse of laws aimed at protecting women from harassment by upholding the principles of fairness, punctuality, and transparency in employment matters. It serves as a cautionary tale for individuals who may attempt to exploit legal avenues for personal gain or as an afterthought following employment disputes.