Creating A Hostile Work Environment Is Labour Dispute; Doesn’t Constitute Sexual Harassment Under POSH Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court said that as regards whether the allegations constitute sexual harassment, the employee had categorically stated before the Committee that the accused did not physically touch her or demand any sexual favours.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Justice K.V. Jayakumar, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that creating a hostile work environment is related to a labour dispute, rather than constituting sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
The Court held thus in an Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Single Judge by which the report of the Local Committee constituted under the POSH Act and the communication issued by the District Collector were held to be illegal and ultra vires of the provisions of POSH Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed, “Her allegation was that the 1st respondent created a hostile work environment, behaved in an unfair and cruel manner, and ultimately denied her salary and terminated her service but without any unwelcome acts or behaviour which may tantamount to sexual harassment as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act. These acts, evidently, are connected to a labour dispute rather than constituting sexual harassment as defined under the PoSH Act.”
The Bench said that as regards whether the allegations constitute sexual harassment, the employee had categorically stated before the Committee that the accused did not physically touch her or demand any sexual favours.
Advocate R. Anilkumar appeared for the Appellant while Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu and Advocate P. Fazil appeared for the Respondents.
Case Background
The Respondent-accused was the Managing Director of a company and his wife was also a Director of the same. The Appellant was employed as an Accountant cum Manager in the said company and she was appointed by the accused’s wife in 1997. She was terminated from service in 2017 and hence, she approached the Labour Court challenging the termination order. Immediately thereafter, the accused instituted a suit before the Munsiff’s Court seeking to interdict the Appellant from trespassing into the office of the company.
In the meantime, a complaint was forwarded to the District Collector, raising certain allegations against the accused. The same was forwarded by the District Collector to the Local Committee constituted under the POSH Act. An enquiry was conducted by the Committee, and a report was submitted before the Collector. Based on the report, the Collector issued a letter calling upon the accused to comply with certain directions. Being aggrieved by this, the accused went to the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. The Single Judge ruled in favour of the accused and hence, the Appellant filed an Appeal.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… the oral statement made before the Committee, after distancing herself from the original anonymous complaint, cannot be accepted as a substitute for the written complaint contemplated under Section 9 of the PoSH Act. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that, in the absence of a written complaint, the inquiry conducted by the Committee was legally unsustainable.”
The Court said that the Appellant had raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) and the Labour Court held that her termination was arbitrary, irregular, and illegal, entitling her to compensation of ₹7,00,000.
“This order was challenged before this Court, and by judgment dated 03.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 15966 of 2022, the learned Single Judge modified the compensation to ₹6,00,000 and directed the 1st respondent to deposit the same. In this background, it is clear that the labour dispute having been adjudicated, the LC was not justified in proceeding with an inquiry regarding alleged unfair labour practices, particularly when the appellant herself admitted there was no element of sexual harassment at the workplace”, it added.
The Court further observed that in this case, no opportunity was afforded to the Respondent to defend himself against the allegations relied upon by the Committee and consequently, the Order passed pursuant thereto cannot be sustained, as it was rendered in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, which the Local Committee was duty-bound to follow in terms of Rule 7(4) of the applicable Rules.
“That said, it has been consistently held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar in at least three well-recognized exceptions, namely: (i) where the writ petition is filed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice; and (iii) where the order or proceedings impugned are wholly without jurisdiction or where the vires of a statute is under challenge”, it reiterated.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Local Committee acted in contravention of the statutory provisions and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the Single Judge was fully justified in setting aside the report and communication.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal.
Cause Title- XXXXXXXXXX v. Abraham Mathai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:57427)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate R. Anilkumar
Respondents: Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu, CGC M. Jayakrishnan, Advocates P. Fazil, Saju Thaliath, Jayasree Manoj, Jithin Paul Varghese, C. Prabitha, Fadil Fazil, Aswathy Jayachandran, and Akshaya Thomas.
