Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently clarified that any unwelcome behavior that is inappropriate and adversely affects women would undoubtedly qualify as "sexual harassment" under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( the PoSH Act).

The court emphasized that the definition prioritizes the act itself over the intention behind it, asserting that employees must interact with one another with decency as the fundamental standard. It noted that in the event of such actions are reported as criminal offence then the prosecution may be expected to prove the intention also.

The bench of Justice R.N. Manjula further underscored that decency is not determined by what an individual perceives as appropriate but by how their actions impact the other gender. 

Court quashed a Principal Labour Court's order that had invalidated the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) on allegations of workplace sexual harassment. The High Court upheld the recommendations made by the ICC and emphasized the importance of a fair but context-sensitive inquiry process in such cases.

The case pertained to a 2017 complaint against N. Parsarathy, a Service Delivery Manager at HCL Technologies, alleging multiple instances of sexual harassment. The ICC, constituted under the PoSH Act, found Parsarathy guilty of misconduct. The complaints included claims that Parsarathy made unwelcome physical contact, asked inappropriate personal questions, and created a hostile work environment for female employees.

The ICC recommended a series of disciplinary measures, including stripping Parsarathy of supervisory responsibilities, confining his role to India, and denying him pay raises or benefits for two years. The recommendations aimed to ensure the safety and dignity of the company's female employees.

However, Parsarathy appealed to the Labour Court, claiming a lack of due process and procedural violations by the ICC. He argued that the non-disclosure of CCTV footage and the absence of cross-examination opportunities rendered the inquiry unfair. The Labour Court accepted his plea and set aside the ICC's findings in December 2019, citing the principles of natural justice.

Challenging this decision, HCL Technologies moved the High Court, asserting that the ICC had acted within its statutory mandate and conducted a fair inquiry. The High Court reviewed the ICC's procedures and found them to be in compliance with the PoSH Act. It noted that the ICC had balanced the respondent’s right to a fair hearing with the complainants' right to a non-intimidating environment during the inquiry.

The High Court criticized the Labour Court's approach, stating that it had failed to appreciate the nuances of workplace harassment cases. It highlighted that in such cases, the perception of the victim holds more significance than the intent of the accused. The judgment also underscored that rigid procedural norms should not undermine the privacy and dignity of complainants, particularly in sensitive cases of sexual harassment.

Court further clarified that the ICC's role is akin to a quasi-judicial authority and its findings should be interfered with only in cases of procedural lapses or manifest injustice. It emphasized that minor discrepancies or the non-availability of CCTV footage should not outweigh the substantive evidence and testimonies gathered during the inquiry.

Accordingly, court allowed the appeal and quashed the Labour Court's order.

Case Title: HCL Technologies Ltd. vs. N.Parsarathy