High Court Upholds Icc Jurisdiction In Workplace Sexual Harassment Case

Judgement Given On :30/11/2021

Introduction

In a recent significant legal development, the Bombay High Court has delivered a verdict that upholds the jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) in addressing workplace sexual harassment cases. This decision stems from a petition filed by David G Samuel, the former president of the Union Biblical Seminary in Pune. Samuel challenged the ICC’s authority, which had found him guilty of sexually harassing an employee. This case underscores the pivotal role played by ICCs in addressing workplace harassment while ensuring a just and equitable process for all parties involved.

The Sequence of Events

  1. November 3: The seminary’s general body passed a resolution to establish an internal committee to investigate allegations of sexual harassment against David G Samuel.
  2. Late November: Another female employee at the seminary filed a similar complaint against Samuel, intensifying scrutiny of his behavior.
  3. January 25: A one-member panel submitted its report, which concluded that Samuel was guilty of sexual harassment within the workplace.
  4. February 1, 2021: Subsequently, Samuel’s membership was revoked, and he was removed from his position as the president of the governing board of trustees of the seminary.
  5. Legal Challenge: Samuel approached the Bombay High Court, primarily questioning the ICC’s jurisdiction. He argued that, as the complainant’s employer, the inquiry should have been conducted by the Local Complaints Committee, appointed by the Pune district collector.

The High Court’s Decision

A division bench comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Madhav Jamdar thoroughly examined Samuel’s arguments and, after careful consideration, upheld the ICC’s jurisdiction. The court provided key findings and reasoning:

  1. Defining “Employer”: The court stressed that the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act explicitly defines an “employer” as any individual responsible for managing, supervising, and controlling the workplace. It pointed out that the seminary’s governing board, comprised of 11 members, collectively oversaw its business affairs. Consequently, the president did not bear exclusive responsibility for the management, supervision, and control of the workplace.
  2. Purpose of the POSH Act: The court underscored that the POSH Act was enacted to address gender disparities, inequities, and to prevent and prohibit workplace sexual harassment, particularly against women. Accepting Samuel’s contentions would have undermined the Act’s fundamental objectives. It would have necessitated complainants to undergo a second inquiry, a scenario that runs counter to the Act’s underlying principles.
  3. Mitigating Additional Trauma: The court recognized that subjecting complainants to a subsequent inquiry would be contrary to the POSH Act’s intentions. The Act aims to provide women with a mechanism to report and redress workplace harassment without subjecting them to additional hardship.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s ruling reaffirms the vital role played by ICCs in addressing workplace sexual harassment complaints. By upholding the ICC’s jurisdiction in this case, the court ensures that complainants are not subjected to further trauma and affirms the principles of fairness and justice. This judgment serves as a poignant reminder of the POSH Act’s core objectives and the indispensable role ICCs play in realizing them.