The Madras High Court held that if something is not received well, is inappropriate, and felt as an unwelcome behaviour affecting other sex namely women, it would be ‘sexual harassment’.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition challenging the Order of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai made in a Standing Order Appeal.

A Single Bench of Justice R.N. Manjula observed, “The respondent who has got his corporate experience should have known to execute his functions without making the women employees embarrassed or frightened due to his actions. The complainants did not state something in the air but have given details of the incidents and have also stated how it was felt by them. If something is not received well and it is inappropriate and felt as an unwelcome behaviour affecting the other sex namely the women, no doubt it would fall under the definition of “sexual harassment.”

The Bench further reiterated that in disciplinary proceedings especially the proceedings taken in pursuant to the charges of sexual harassment, the Courts should not be carried away with insignificant discrepancies or hyper-technicalities and the appreciation should be comprehensive.

Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Senior Advocate K.M. Ramesh appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Respondent joined the Petitioner-company (HCL Technologies Ltd.) as an Associate General Manager in pursuant to the appointment letter in 2016. The Petitioner-company got Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) in order to look into the complaints arising under the said Act. The Respondent was brought to enquiry before ICC twice within a span of few years of his appointment. There was an allegation of sexual harassment against him in 2017 and on an enquiry made by ICC, he was found guilty for his inappropriate behaviour under the PoSH Act. Even thereafter, the company received many sexual harassment complaints against the Respondent from many women who were working under him. In 2018, one of the women employees (First Complainant) had alleged that the Respondent indulged in an unwelcome physical contact by hovering close to her when she was seated.

During enquiry, the said Complainant disclosed that such contact would take place even when the Respondent had no connection with the project at work. The other staff (Second Complainant) alleged that the Respondent had verbally harassed her by repeatedly asking her physical measurements and making her to feel extremely uncomfortable. She had stated that the Respondent had leaned closed to her, touched her shoulder and asked her to remove her garment for the purpose of measurement. The Third Complainant had complained that the Respondent inquisitively asked her about her menstrual cycles. Hence, enquiry was initiated on such complaints and it was found that the Respondent’s behaviour was highly inappropriate and amounted to sexual harassment. Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an Appeal before the Labour Court and it had reversed the findings of the ICC. Challenging this, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “Regarding the appreciation of materials in the charges of sexual harassment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K.Chopra reported in AIR 1999 SC 625, that the Court cannot overlook the ground realities and ignore the conduct of the respondent against his junior female employees. In the instant case also the complainants are juniors or subordinate to the respondent and the respondent is expected to conduct himself in such a manner that he does not cause a feeling of discomfort embarrassment.”

The Court said that the Respondent’s postures or gestures while standing closer to the women employee should be compatible to the purpose and object of the work and not beyond that and it would have been a different case if the Complainants had exaggerated the usual and routine interaction as a case of sexual harassment.

“There is no misunderstanding in the mind of the complainants before giving the complaints against the respondent. Their statements and the materials placed on record would show that in the name of performing duty the respondent had put the complainants in an embarrassing and an uneasy position. No doubt such kind of gestures either physical, verbal or non verbal, are unwelcome ones”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court elucidated that the definition of ‘sexual harassment’ as it is seen from the PoSH Act has given significance to the Act than the intention behind the same and in the event such actions are reported as criminal offence then the prosecution may be expected to prove the intention also.

“It is the fundamental discipline and understanding with which the employees of different gender are expected to interact with each other where decency is the yardstick and nothing else. While speaking about the decency it is not the decency which the respondent thinks within himself, but how he makes the other gender to feel about his actions”, it also observed.

The Court said that the ICC appears to be sensitive and reasonable in its approach during the process of inquiry and had formulated its own method of ensuring fairness in giving opportunities to both the Complainant and the Respondent. It added that the strict rules of evidence has got no application to the type of inquiry that is being made by the ICC on the charges of sexual harassment against the women employees.

“Not yielding to hyper-technicalities even when the respondent pulled the inquiring authority, can also be considered as a feature of fairness during inquiry. The Labour Court ought not to have given much significance to the non-furnishing of CCTV footage to the respondent. The nature of the complaint, the constitution of the ICC, the course of inquiry and the findings of the ICC are seen to be interlinked with each other and the committee did not wander over and beyond the scope of inquiry with any malicious intention against the respondent”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Labour Court’s Order.

Cause Title- HCL Technologies Ltd. v. N. Parsarathy (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:202)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan and Advocate Anita Suresh.

Respondent: Senior Advocate K.M. Ramesh and Advocate V. Subramani.

Click here to read/download the Judgment