Delhi HC: Right to Approach the State Commission for Women in the absence of an IC

Case Brief 

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi 

Parties: Fauzia Rubbani v. Delhi Woman Commission & Ors. 

Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 11749/2019 and CM Appl. 48222/2019 

Date of Order: 02.02.2023 

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh 

Facts:  

X (Petitioner) filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Y (Respondent No. 6) before the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW). DCW referred the complaint to A (Respondent No. 4), i.e., employer for inquiry. DCW also directed A to file the status report within one (1) month and the final report after the completion of inquiry. A acknowledged the directions of DCW and informed the Commission that A would conduct the inquiry through its own IC. However, A highlighted that X’s unsatisfactory work performance in the said acknowledgement. 

The complaint had been filed in 2019. However, A had failed to constitute an internal committee till date. 

Aggrieved by the actions of A, X filed a petition seeking following reliefs (in addition to other interim reliefs): 

1. Compensation for non-constitution of IC 

2. Compensation for grievous injury and irreparable damage done to her physically and her psyche by reason of actions complained against A and Y 

3. Litigation expenses 

4. To hold Y guilty of sexually harassing X with help and aid of A 

5. To direct DCW to initiate action against Y 

6. To hold that A violated Vishaka guidelines 

7. To hold X’s termination as void 

8. Initiate contempt proceedings against A and Y 

Law: Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘POSH Act’) 

Analysis:  

The court considered the submissions of DCW and made the following observations: 

1. DCW issued multiple notices to A. However, A was not being represented before DCW. X used to regularly appear before DCW, but subsequently, X also stopped appearing.  

2. X had made the following submissions before DCW. 

• X’s services had already been terminated, 

• X’s dues have not been paid to her. 

3. DCW directed A to pay a sum of Rs. 1.20 lakhs to X. DCW also directed A to give details of the computation / payments made to X and the status of constitution of IC. However, A filed no affidavit to the directions. 

4. DCW issued multiple notices. However, A merely repeated informed DCW that A would be conducting an inquiry through its own IC and submit a status report. However, A did nothing to that effect. The complaint had been filed in 2019. However, A had failed to constitute an internal committee till date. 

5. When an IC is not constituted, X had no alternative other than to pursue the complaint before the DCW. 

Conclusion: 

The court disposed of the petition with the following directions: 

1. DCW was directed to draw an adverse inference against A (Respondent No. 4) and pass final orders in accordance with the POSH Act. 

2. Cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was awarded to X (Petitioner) for non-constitution of IC by A. 

By – Divya R, Trainer & External Member, Chief Quality Officer (Social Media)