Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shrinivas Shinde, a Lower Division Clerk employed with the Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (Respondent No. 1), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging an order dated 26th November 2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court in Appeal No. SH/01-2025. The dispute arose from a complaint of sexual harassment made by Respondent No. 4 against the petitioner under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted to inquire into the complaint. During the proceedings, Respondent No. 4 retracted her complaint, stating that she was forced to make it on threats of future harassment by her Principal, Respondent No. 3. The ICC, relying on the retracted statement, closed the proceedings but concluded that the complainant was forced by an 'unknown source' to make the complaint, omitting the name of Respondent No. 3. The petitioner's grievance was limited to this omission, as he alleged that Respondent No. 3 had instigated a false complaint against him. He sought to quash the ICC report and direct the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3. The Industrial Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's appeal, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court examined the scope of judicial review under Article 226 and held that the ICC is not a quasi-judicial authority and its findings are recommendatory. The court noted that the ICC had already exonerated the petitioner, and the omission of Respondent No. 3's name did not cause any prejudice. The court further held that the petitioner cannot seek a direction for disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3 through a writ petition, as the employer has the discretion to initiate such action. The court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the employer for disciplinary action against Respondent No. 3.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 - The High Court held that a writ petition challenging an ICC report under the POSH Act is not maintainable when the grievance is limited to an omission in the report, as the ICC is not a quasi-judicial authority and its findings are recommendatory. The court declined to interfere with the ICC's conclusion that the complaint was instigated by an 'unknown source', as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of seeking disciplinary action against the alleged instigator. (Paras 1-19) B) Service Law - Sexual Harassment - Internal Complaints Committee - Omission of Name - The ICC, after the complainant retracted her statement, closed the proceedings but recorded that she was forced by an 'unknown source'. The petitioner's grievance was that the ICC omitted the name of Respondent No. 3, who was alleged to have instigated the complaint. The court held that the ICC's omission did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, as the ICC had already exonerated him. (Paras 3-15) C) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Alternative Remedy - The petitioner sought a direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3. The court held that such a direction cannot be issued in a writ petition, as the employer has the discretion to initiate disciplinary action based on available material. The petitioner can make a representation to the employer for the same. (Paras 16-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the omission of the name of Respondent No. 3 from the ICC's conclusion, which stated that the complaint was instigated by an 'unknown source', warrants quashing of the ICC report and direction for disciplinary action against Respondent No. 3.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the ICC's omission did not cause prejudice and that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of making a representation to the employer for disciplinary action against Respondent No. 3.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petition against ICC report
- Scope of judicial review under Article 226
- Omission of name in ICC report not a ground for quashing
- Alternative remedy of disciplinary proceedings available
