Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling On IC Composition, Jurisdiction, And Unfair Transfers
Judgement Given On : 25/02/2020
Background of the Case:
The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the case of Punjab Sind Bank & Ors vs. Durgesh Kunwar, on February 25, 2020. This case involved a range of issues, including the composition of the Internal Committee (IC), its jurisdiction, and allegations of unfair transfers following complaints of sexual harassment. The court’s observations and conclusions in this case shed light on crucial aspects of workplace harassment and related legal proceedings. Durgesh Kunwar, a Probationary Officer (Scale I) promoted to Chief Manager (Scale IV) in Punjab Sind Bank, detected irregularities in the accounts maintained by liquor contractors at the branch. Following her report of these irregularities, she alleged that she faced a transfer order and subsequent harassment from her superior. She also raised sexual harassment allegations against him.
IC Composition and Independent Member:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of having an independent member in the IC, as mandated by Section 4(2)(c) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act. This independent member is meant to ensure unbiased proceedings. In this case, the Court noted that the external member of the IC was a panel lawyer of the bank and regularly contested cases involving the bank in court. As such, the Court found a conflict of interest and emphasized the need to replace such a member with a truly independent third party. This decision aimed to maintain the integrity of the IC’s proceedings.
Jurisdiction of Local Committee (LC):
The Supreme Court clarified the jurisdiction of the LC, emphasizing that it extends only to complaints against the employer. In this case, the complainant had levied allegations against her Zonal Manager, who was not the employer. As a result, the LC did not have jurisdiction to address the sexual harassment complaint against him.
Unfair Transfer and Victimization:
The Court examined the circumstances surrounding the complainant’s transfer. It observed that her transfer to a branch where she would work as an officer of Scale I, despite her promotion to Scale IV, was indicative of victimization. The Court noted that her reports of irregularities in the branch led to reprisals in the form of this transfer, and it deemed the transfer to be an act of unfair treatment vitiated by malafides. The Court underscored that administrative exigencies and circulars do not grant employees the right to choose their postings. However, it stated that unless an order of transfer is established to be malafide, contrary to statutory provisions, or issued by an authority lacking competence, the Court would not typically interfere through judicial review.
Interim Order in a Related Case:
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in the case of Ms. Fauzia Rubbani v/s Delhi Woman Commission and Ors. In this case, the employer was directed to pay a lumpsum amount of INR 1,20,000 to the petitioner in response to allegations of her termination after raising complaints of sexual harassment. This amount was subject to further orders of the Court.
Court’s ruling:
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Punjab Sind Bank vs. Durgesh Kunwar case serves as a landmark judgment with implications for the composition of ICs, the jurisdiction of LCs, and the fairness of transfers in the context of sexual harassment complaints. It reinforces the importance of having truly independent members in ICs to ensure impartial proceedings. Additionally, the ruling clarifies the jurisdiction of LCs, limiting them to complaints against the employer. Finally, it underscores that while transfers are a part of service exigencies, they must not be used as tools of victimization and must adhere to established legal principles.