The High Court of Delhi delivered a pivotal judgement in a case filed by Bibha Pandey (the Petitioner) against Punjab National Bank and others (the Respondents). This case challenged the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) concerning a sexual harassment complaint lodged by the Petitioner against a General Manager of the Bank.
Background of the Case
The ICC investigated the complaint and concluded that the relationship between the Petitioner and the accused was consensual, finding no evidence of sexual harassment. Despite this conclusion, the ICC made observations about the "inappropriate" and "unbecoming" conduct of both parties and recommended disciplinary action against them. This led to a charge-sheet being issued against the Petitioner.
The Petitioner contested the ICC’s recommendations and the subsequent charge-sheet, arguing that the ICC exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing "unbecoming conduct" when their findings did not support claims of sexual harassment.
Legal Examination
The court reviewed key provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, specifically Sections 13(2) and 13(3). According to these sections:
If the ICC concludes that no sexual harassment occurred, it can only recommend that no action be taken.
If sexual harassment is established, the ICC may suggest disciplinary action in accordance with the organisation’s service rules.
The court emphasised that the ICC’s mandate is confined to investigating and addressing allegations of sexual harassment. It does not extend to moral judgments or policing the personal relationships of employees unless those relationships adversely affect the workplace or violate organisational rules.
Key Observations from the Judgement
The High Court provided a crucial clarification on the scope of the ICC’s authority, stating:
“Moral policing is not the job of the Management or of the ICC. Any consensual relationship among adults would not be the concern of the Management or of the ICC, so long as the said relationship does not affect the working and the discipline of the organisation and is not contrary to the Rules or code of conduct binding on the said employees.”
This statement underscores the court’s stance that the ICC overstepped its boundaries by commenting on the personal relationship between the Petitioner and the accused. The court asserted that as long as the relationship was consensual and did not disrupt workplace functioning, it should not be subject to scrutiny or punitive action.
Implications for Sexual Harassment Cases
Sexual harassment complaints are often filed with hesitation due to their sensitive nature. The court acknowledged this and stressed that the ICC’s power must be exercised strictly within the legal framework. By overstepping its jurisdiction, the ICC risks undermining the confidence of employees in the redressal mechanism.
Conclusion
This judgement serves as a reminder that the ICC’s role is limited to investigating allegations of sexual harassment and recommending actions only within the confines of the law. Personal relationships between employees, if consensual and non-disruptive, are not within the purview of the ICC or the management.
By clarifying these boundaries, the Delhi High Court’s decision not only protects employees from undue moral policing but also reinforces the importance of adhering to the legal framework in workplace harassment cases. This landmark ruling is expected to shape how internal complaints committees approach their responsibilities in the future.
Comments