NEW DELHI: Clarifying the procedure for inquiry into a sexual harassment at workplace complaint, when accused and survivor belong to two different offices or departments, Supreme Court on Thursday ruled it will be the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman to hold inquiry and not by the ICC of workplace of the person facing complaint.A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi said the aggrieved woman, who has allegedly suffered an act of sexual harassment at workplace, should not be compelled to file a complaint before the ICC constituted at the workplace of the ‘respondent’ – against whom allegation has been made.It rejected the plea of a 2010-batch IRS officer who alleged the inquiry against him on a complaint made by a 2004-batch woman IAS officer be conducted only by the ICC of his department and challenged the notice issued by the ICC of her department. The alleged incident happened in 2023.The court said if the IRS officer’s plea is allowed, then it would cause several procedural and psychological barriers for the aggrieved woman, and create a situation where the woman would have to appear before the ICC at an alien workplace to pursue her remedy in law. SC, however, made it clear the action against the erring employee can be taken only by his department as per its rule on the basis of the report prepared by the ICC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace. “The taboo around sexual harassment at workplace and the fear of stigma, which may be attached to the aggrieved woman as a consequence of a complaint regarding sexual harassment, already poses a massive psychological barrier for the aggrieved women, which actively dissuades them from pursuing their remedy in law.” “In such view of the matter also, the intent of the legislature behind giving such a wide meaning to the word ‘workplace’ to go beyond the bounds of the traditional meaning implying location of office, cannot be brushed aside by narrow construction of other provisions of the POSH Act. It is for the aforementioned reasons that we are constrained to reject the argument of the appellant,” it said. The bench said if an aggrieved woman has to approach the ICC constituted at the workplace of the ‘respondent’ for every third-party incident, it would fall short of the objective.”Any person against whom a complaint is filed by the aggrieved woman before the ICC constituted at her workplace under Section 9, is a ‘respondent’ under the Act, and as per the scheme of Section 11(1), if the ‘respondent’ is an ’employee’, his service rules shall apply and in the absence of service rules, inquiry shall be conducted as prescribed, but the ‘respondent’ need not necessarily be an employee of the same ‘workplace’,” the bench said.
