Deciphering The Sexual Harassment Laws- Madras High Court

Judgement Given On : 17/02/2020

In a landmark decision dated February 17, 2020, the Madras High Court grappled with critical facets of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“PoSH Act”). The case, Union of India and Ors. v. Smt. Reva Srinivasan Iyengar and Ors., scrutinized the definition of ’employer,’ the roles of the Local Committee (LC), and the nature of allegations, underscoring that the PoSH Act should not be exploited to level exaggerated or unfounded accusations.

Background

Mr. V. Natarajan, the plaintiff, served as the Deputy Registrar of Trade Mark & GI in Chennai. The respondent, Mrs. Rema Srinivasan Iyengar, an Assistant Registrar, filed a complaint against Mr. Natarajan on December 2, 2013 (“Complaint 1”). She alleged that Mr. Natarajan’s high-handed conduct had offended her self-respect. On July 16, 2014, the Registrar and Controller General of Trade Marks and GI and Patents and Design constituted an Internal Committee (IC) to investigate Complaint 1.

Subsequently, the complainant lodged another complaint on June 30, 2015 (“Complaint 2”), detailing numerous instances of Mr. Natarajan’s discourteous behavior. In this complaint, she repeatedly employed the term ‘sexual harassment.’ She also approached the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, expressing her concerns about the IC’s impartiality due to its subordination to Mr. Natarajan.

In response to the complainant’s objections, the IC underwent a change in its Chairperson. Meanwhile, the LC initiated an inquiry based on another complaint filed on February 17, 2016 (“Complaint 3”). The LC found a prima facie case under specific sections of the PoSH Act, recommending an immediate comprehensive departmental inquiry against Mr. Natarajan by his employer.

Dissatisfied with the new IC, the complainant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (“CAT”), contending that the new IC’s formation was invalid. The CAT concluded that, since the LC had already conducted a preliminary inquiry and Mr. Natarajan was the Head of the Department, the complaint against him should be investigated solely by the LC.

Key Issues

  1. Can the IC and LC simultaneously conduct preliminary inquiries?
  2. Must the findings of the ex-parte LC inquiry be adhered to?
  3. Did Complaint 1 contain allegations warranting the formation of the IC?
  4. Is Mr. Natarajan considering the ’employer’ as per the PoSH Act?

Court’s Ruling

Concerning the first and second issues, the Madras High Court observed that the LC had rendered an erroneous decision without providing a reasoned order. It emphasized that affording the accused an opportunity to defend themselves was mandatory. However, the court refrained from delving deeper into the legality of parallel IC and LC proceedings or the ex-parte LC decision.

On the third issue, the court characterized Complaint 1 as “generic in nature,” primarily highlighting Mr. Natarajan’s authoritative demeanor and some degree of bias. This stood in stark contrast to Complaint 3, which referenced physical advances and lewd remarks. The court noted that Complaint 2 repeatedly invoked ‘sexual harassment’ without elaboration, potentially giving the impression that any official instruction or reprimand constituted sexual harassment. The court concluded that Complaint 2 seemed coached and lacked specific incident details. It held that a solitary allegation of intemperate language against a female employee did not constitute an offense under the PoSH Act.

Addressing the fourth issue, the court disagreed with CAT’s determination that Mr. Natarajan was the ’employer.’ It underscored that the formation of the IC was not determined by Mr. Natarajan, rendering the ’employer’ label illogical. Furthermore, Mr. Natarajan, as the Head of the Chennai office, was subordinate to superiors in New Delhi and did not qualify as the ’employer.’

The Madras High Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Reema Srinivasan Iyengar provides crucial insights into interpreting the PoSH Act. The court stressed the importance of not conducting retrospective inquiries and reaffirmed the necessity of allowing the accused an opportunity to defend themselves. The judgment underscored the need to safeguard complainants’ rights while preventing the misuse of the Act through exaggerated or baseless allegations. It highlighted the significance of maintaining workplace decorum and emphasized that legitimate concerns should be channeled through proper procedures rather than resorting to the misuse of the PoSH Act.