Brief: The Madras High Court held that feelings of the Complainant matter more than intentions of the Respondent, statement of witnesses and even virtual evidence like CCTV footage in a POSH inquiry.
Case Description
HCL Technologies Ltd. V. N.Parsarathy
Madras High Court
Case Type: Writ Petition
Case No.: W.P. No.5643 of 2020
Date of Order: 22.01.2025
Bench: R.N.MANJULA, J.
Facts
- The Internal Committee (“IC”) of the Petitioner’s company received multiple complaints of sexual harassment against the Respondent in 2 years of his service within the company.
- Two Complainants filed sexual harassment complaint against the Respondent before the IC. They stated that the Respondent stands too close to them and tries to lean over them or touch them in pretext of work. This made them feel uncomfortable.
- IC conducted an inquiry and found the Respondent guilty under the POSH Act.
- IC recommendation was carried out on 31.08.2018. The Respondent was terminated on 12.07.2019. He filed an appeal before the Labour Court after his termination.
- The Labour Court set aside IC’s recommendation and held that the inquiry was conducted in violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
- Petitioner’s company filed the current writ petition to challenge Labour Court’s decision.
Issues
- Whether Labour Court erred in setting aside the IC’s recommendation on the ground that it did not furnish CCTV footage to the Respondent?
- Whether Respondent’s actions of standing close to the Complainants or touching their shoulders qualify as sexual harassment?
Laws Involved
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013 (“POSH Act”)
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Labour Court went beyond its jurisdiction when it interfered with IC’s inquiry.
- During the inquiry, Respondent asked Petitioner’s company for CCTV footage. However, IC found that the nature of complaint did not require analysis of CCTV footage and did not allow the request. Labour Court did not consider the reasoning.
- Labour Court allowed the appeal on assumption that the Respondent did not receive fair opportunity to present his case because the cross-examination happened through written communication.
- Labour Court did not consider that Principles of Natural Justice differ from case-to-case basis, depending on facts and circumstances of case.
- Therefore, Labour Court’s decision should be set aside.
Respondent’s Arguments
- IC concluded the inquiry based on premises and surmises.
- Complainant did not give any statement to support their claims.
- Respondent’s cross-examination questions were not put before the witnesses and their answers were not obtained.
- Witnesses were not made to answer the questions through video conferencing.
- Respondent was kept in dark about cross examination of witnesses and the video footage was not shared with him.
- IC did not consider the letter submitted by one of the staffs stating that he did not indulge in such activities.
- IC disallowed the questions raised by the Respondent.
- Hence, Labour Court’s order is correct and should not be interfered with.
Court’s Analysis
Regarding the Court’s Power to Interfere with IC Inquiry Report
- The court’s power to review IC’s inquiry reports is limited. It can only intervene to ensure whether the IC conducted the inquiry in fair and proper manner or whether there is violation of natural justice principles [Relied on Vidya Akhave Vs. Union of India (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9288)].
- The power of judicial review cannot be used as power of appellate authority. Under judicial review, the court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at an independent finding.
- Such interference can only be made if the court finds that the inquiry was conducted in violation of natural justice principles or without adherence to prescribed rules and procedures or if findings were not substantiated with evidence or reasoning.
Regarding Labour Court’s Misinterpretation and Mistakes
- IC inquiry cannot be equated with an Industrial Dispute inquiry.
- Labour Court did not appreciate the material on record thoroughly. On its perusal of material, it noted that first Complainant did not submit her statement to the IC. However, there is a mail from Respondent to IC that asked for clarification in first Complainant’s statement. This established that first Complainant did give her statement.
- Respondent did not raise objections against IC’s existence or constitution. Labour Court ventured on the discussion on its own imagination.
- Further, it failed to acknowledge that Respondent did not have issues with IC’s recommendation initially. He filed the appeal after he was terminated because of it.
- Respondent was superior in position to the Complainants. IC designed the inquiry to suit the dynamics between the parties and to ensure fairness in the proceeding. Labour Court failed to properly appreciate this aspect and set aside the IC’s recommendation merely because Respondent was not furnished with CCTV footage.
- Court cannot overlook ground realities and ignore the conduct of Respondent against his female subordinates in the office [held in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K.Chopra (AIR 1999 SC 625)]
Regarding Complaints of Sexual Harassment
- First Complainant alleged that the Respondent hovers over her while she is seated and insists her to shake hands with him when he stands close to her.
- Second Complainant stated that overcoats were being distributed to the employees. Although she had told the Respondent that her size is 2XL, he allegedly asked her to give her measurements in ‘cms’ or remove her coat and give it to him for measurements. She also alleged that Respondent inappropriately touched her shoulder on another occasion.
- Respondent explained that he stood close to the lady staff to observe their performance as their supervisor.
- Material on record did not show any ulterior motive that the Complainants might have had to file false complaints. Petitioner’s company also did not have any illegal motive to remove Respondent through false complaints.
- Further, the Court noted that Complainant also worked with other supervisors and there were no complaints against them.
- In sexual harassment complaints, Complainants’ feelings matter a lot more than witnesses’ statements or CCTV recordings.
- The Hon’ble High Court opined that a physical gesture like handshake or tap on shoulder might happen innocently between opposite sexes in a workplace. However, what matters is how those gestures made the recipient feel.
Regarding IC Inquiry and Standard of Reasonableness
- IC is obligated to grant reasonable opportunity to both parties. Complications arise when the standard of reasonableness and fairness is set by it.
- Objective of reasonableness is to ensure that Respondent does not become a scape goat in a maliciously filed false complaint.
- There is no straight jacket formula to suggest standard of reasonableness in departmental inquiry. However, for sexual harassment complaints, IC should give priority to privacy, secrecy and safety of the Complainant.
- Employers must exercise sensitivity and ensure that the Complainant is not put through long and grilling cross-examination for the sake of providing fair opportunity.
- In the present instance, Respondent habitually sent long list of questions in the name of availing fair opportunity. IC cannot be expected to put such questions as is before the Complainant. It has to filter or rephrase the questions and place them before the Complainant and Witnesses.
- Respondent did not deny that he stood close to the Complainants. He merely justified it as a part of his supervisory duties. Since CCTV footage cannot corroborate intentions, IC did not find it as relevant evidence.
Also Read: Step-By-Step Guide on Handling Sexual Harassment Complaints for POSH Committees
Conclusion
The Hon’ble Court held that:
- Labour Court should not have set aside IC’s recommendations on the sole grounds of non-furnishing of CCTV footage. It should have seen the interlinking between nature of complaint, IC’s constitution, procedure followed for inquiry and IC’s findings to decide whether the IC deviated from its scope of inquiry.
- Strict rules of evidence do not apply to POSH inquiries.
- Decency does not mean decency that the Respondent thinks within himself, but how he makes others feel with his actions. The standard of reasonableness is not the standard of a reasonable man but the standard of a reasonable woman.
- Respondent embarrassed and made the Complainants feel uncomfortable in the name of performing duties. His gestures of hovering over his juniors or touching them on shoulders were unwelcome actions.
- If an action is not well-received or if it is not appropriate and is felt as an unwelcome behaviour affecting the other sex (namely, the women), it would fall under the definition of sexual harassment.
Authored by Ayush Bardhan, Trainee Associate, The Legal Swan