Read Time: 07 minutes

The Industries, Energy & Labour Department, Maharashtra Govt on March 31, 2021 has issued a notification appointing 20 Industrial Courts as Appellate Authority in the respective districts under Sexual, Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) pursuant to the order of the Division Bench comprising Justice K.K. Tated & Justice R.I. Chagla, Bombay High Court in the case of Dasharath Kallappa Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (WP No 786 of 2021). 

 “In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946) (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and in suppression of earlier notifications issued in this behalf, the Government of Maharashtra being an appropriate Government appoints Industrial Courts constituted under section 10 of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act (XI of 1947) mentioned in column (2) of the schedule appended hereto, as the Appellate Authority for the areas respectively mentioned in column (3) thereof, to exercise the functions of an Appellate Authority under the said Act in respect of the Industrial Establishments in relation to which the State Government is the appropriate authority.”,the notification reads.  

The notification came pursuant to the Bench’s order while it was hearing a plea under Art 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated December 3, 2020 passed by the Local Complaints, Pune imposing penalty on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court which was rejected vide order dated January 29,2021 on the ground that it did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal. The Industrial Tribunal observed that, 

“4. The conjoint reading of these provisions clearly show that the appeal against the recommendation lies to the Court or Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the aggrieved person and in the absence of service rules, the appeal may be fled as may be prescribed under the rules. Rule 11 of Prevention of Sexual Harassment Rules, 2013 provides that the aggrieved person may prefer appeal to the appellate authority notifed under clause 29 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

5. This Tribunal is not the appellate authority of the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the appellant. In fact, this Tribunal or Court is not appellate authority under any of the service Rules applicable to public or private establishments. Further, Rule 2A of the IESO Act does not provide that this Tribunal is appellate authority. No notification has been issued in the name of the Industrial Court as per rule 11 of Prevention of Sexual Harassment Rules 2013. Therefore, this Court holds that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the appeal.”

Rule 11 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 deals with Appeal. 

It states that, “Subject to the provisions of section 18, any person aggrieved from the recommendations made under sub-section (2) of section 13 or under clauses (i) or clause (A) of subsection (3) of section 13 or sub-section (I) or sub-section (2) of section 14 or section 17 or non-implementation of such recommendations may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority notified under clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946).”

Thus the Bench while staying the operation of the impugned order directed the AGP to file an Affidavit addressed to the concerned officer on or before March 24, 2021 explaining as to whether  a notification notifying Appellate Authority has been issued under Rule 11 of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Rule 2013 or not & if not how much time would it take for issuing the notification.