Case Note & Summary
Background: Three female Assistant Professors at Shri Shivaji Science College filed writ petitions challenging their transfer orders dated 25.06.2013, alleging that the transfers were victimization for complaining about sexual harassment at the workplace. They sought quashing of the transfer orders, constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and departmental enquiry against the alleged harassers. Facts: The petitioners were working in different departments—Geology, Physical Education, and Mathematics. They had made complaints about sexual harassment and gender discrimination. The management claimed the transfers were on administrative grounds and that the petitioners had already been relieved. The college constituted an Internal Complaints Committee on 08.07.2013 under Section 4 of the 2013 Act, after the enactment and after the filing of the petitions. The Court, vide order dated 18.12.2013, directed the Committee to inquire into the complaints and submit its report. The Presiding Officer Smt. Madhugiri submitted a separate report in a sealed envelope, while the other three members submitted a joint report. The NGO member Smt. Pankule was not fully present during the proceedings and signed the joint report without having attended all hearings. Legal Issues: The preliminary issues considered by the Court were: (1) the validity of the composition of the Internal Complaints Committee; (2) whether the President, Secretary of the Society administering the college, and the Principal could be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Committee as they might be 'employer' under Section 2(g)(ii); (3) whether the procedure of submitting separate reports complied with Section 13 of the Act; and (4) whether the NGO member's participation was proper. Arguments: The petitioners argued that Section 13 mandates a single joint report, and submission of two separate reports was unsustainable. They also contended that the NGO member was frequently absent and her presence was necessary. The respondents defended the Committee's constitution and procedure, arguing that the complaints were filed before the Committee's formation, but the Court rejected that technical objection as the harassment, if any, continued. Court's Analysis: The High Court examined the provisions of the 2013 Act, particularly Sections 4 and 13, and the Vishaka guidelines. It found that the Committee's procedure was defective because the Presiding Officer submitted a separate report, which was not contemplated by the statute. The Act requires one joint inquiry report by all members. The NGO member's absence and subsequent signing of the joint report without full participation further vitiated the inquiry. The Court therefore rejected both inquiry reports. It also held that the President, Secretary, and Principal are 'employers' under the Act and can be subjected to the Committee's jurisdiction. The Court did not examine the merits of the sexual harassment allegations or the validity of the transfer orders, keeping those issues open for later consideration. Decision: The Court set aside the inquiry reports and directed the Internal Complaints Committee to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with the law, expeditiously. It clarified that all contentions regarding the transfer orders and the perversity of findings are kept open. The judgment thus partly allowed the petitions by ordering a fresh statutory inquiry.
Headnote
A) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace - Composition of Internal Complaints Committee - Section 4, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - The College constituted an Internal Complaints Committee on 08.07.2013 as per Section 4, with a Presiding Officer and members; petitioners contended that the Committee was not constituted earlier as per Vishaka guidelines - Held that the Committee was properly constituted after the enactment, but procedural compliance in conducting inquiry was scrutinized (Paras 2-4). B) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace - Inquiry Procedure - Section 13, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 13 requires a single joint inquiry report by all members; the Presiding Officer submitted a separate report and three other members submitted a joint report; the NGO member was not fully present and did not sign the joint report - The Court held that separate reports violate Section 13 and vitiate the inquiry; the reports were rejected (Paras 5-6). C) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace - Employer's Jurisdiction - Section 2(g)(ii), Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - The question whether the President, Secretary of the Society and Principal could be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee as they may be 'employer' - The Court held that these officials fall within the definition of 'employer' and can be subjected to the Committee's jurisdiction (Para 3). D) Transfer Orders and Victimization - The petitioners challenged transfer orders as victimization for sexual harassment complaints; the Court directed the Internal Complaints Committee to inquire and submit report; validity of transfers kept open - The inquiry reports were set aside due to procedural defects; fresh inquiry directed, and all contentions kept open for further hearing (Paras 2, 4, 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Internal Complaints Committee followed the procedure under Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, by submitting separate reports; Whether the President, Secretary, and Principal can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Committee; Whether the composition of the Committee was proper.
Final Decision
The Court rejected both inquiry reports (Presiding Officer's separate report and the joint report of three members) as they violated Section 13 of the 2013 Act. The Committee was directed to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Court held that the President, Secretary, and Principal can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee. The validity of transfer orders and perversity of findings were kept open for further hearing.
Law Points
- Internal Complaints Committee must submit a single joint inquiry report under Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention
- Prohibition and Redressal) Act
- 2013
- Presiding Officer cannot submit a separate report
- Members of the Committee must be present during proceedings and sign the report
- President
- Secretary
- and Principal of an institution can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee as 'employer' under Section 2(g)(ii)
- Vishaka guidelines mandate constitution of Committee.
