Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) communication rejecting a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Respondent No. 2 was employed with Maple Infra Investment Manager Private Limited (Maple Infra) as General Counsel (Vice President-Legal) from 1 August 2023. She tendered resignation on 12 October 2023 amid disputes over exit terms. On 18 October 2023, a draft Mutual Settlement Agreement was shared, but negotiations failed. On 19 October 2023, she filed a complaint before the Ethics and Compliance Committee of CDPQ, alleging wrongful termination, gender bias, discrimination and retaliation. On 25 October 2023, Maple Infra accepted her resignation; however, she later expressed unwillingness to exit. On 28 October 2023 at 6:22 pm, she sent an email to the ICC of Maple Infra branding it as a complaint under the POSH Act. She objected to Ms. Chandrani Sen being a member of the ICC, so the complaint was forwarded to an external member, Ms. Rewati Bhagwat. On 30 October 2023 at 9:39 pm, the external member informed her that the ICC had determined the allegations did not have any sexual element and were outside its jurisdiction. On the same day at 10:19 pm, Maple Infra terminated her employment. She later protested the rejection and reiterated that a statement by Mr. Anup Vikal had a sexual tone. The ICC reiterated its rejection on 16 November and 8 December 2023. Respondent No. 2 then filed Appeal (IESO) No. 3 of 2024 before the Industrial Court, Mumbai under Section 18(1) of the POSH Act challenging the ICC email dated 30 October 2023. Petitioners, who were employees or associated with Maple Infra, filed applications questioning the maintainability of the appeal and seeking deletion from the appeal. Earlier deletion applications were rejected on 20 January 2025; writ petitions against that order were disposed of with liberty to file maintainability applications. On 4 May 2026, the Industrial Court passed the impugned order dismissing the maintainability applications, holding the appeal maintainable, setting aside the ICC communication dated 30 October 2023, and remanding the matter to ICC for fresh inquiry with due opportunity. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The main legal issue framed was whether an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act lies against a mere communication by the ICC that the complaint does not involve sexual harassment. Petitioners argued that Section 18 permits appeals only against recommendations made under Sections 13(2), 13(3)(i) or (ii), 14(1) or (2), or 17, or against non-implementation of a recommendation; that inquiry under Section 11 requires a complaint of sexual harassment under Section 9; and that the ICC email was not a recommendation because no inquiry had been conducted. They also contended that the Industrial Court decided the appeal on merits without hearing the parties on merits, having only heard maintainability applications. The judgment text provided ends during the petitioners' submissions and does not include the final decision of the High Court. Therefore, the court's ultimate ruling on the maintainability of the appeal and the writ petitions is not available in the extracted portion.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Sexual Harassment at Workplace - Maintainability of Appeal - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Section 18 - The court considered whether an appeal under Section 18 lies against an ICC communication stating that the complaint lacks a sexual element. Petitioners contended that Section 18 permits appeals only against recommendations made under Sections 13(2), 13(3)(i) or (ii), 14(1) or (2), or 17, or non-implementation of recommendation, and that the ICC communication was not a recommendation because no inquiry under Section 11 had been conducted. (Paras 1-11)
B) Service Law - Sexual Harassment at Workplace - Jurisdiction of ICC - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Sections 9 and 11 - Petitioners argued that the word 'complaint' is not defined but must be a complaint of sexual harassment; absent a complaint of sexual harassment, no inquiry can be conducted. The ICC found that the respondent's complaint did not contain any allegation of sexual harassment. (Paras 10-11)
C) Procedural Law - Industrial Court - Scope of Hearing - Industrial Court while deciding maintainability application cannot decide main appeal without hearing parties on merits. Petitioners argued that only maintainability applications were argued pursuant to a pursis, but the Industrial Court proceeded to allow the appeal and remand the matter without affording opportunity on merits. (Paras 7, 9-10)
D) Service Law - Sexual Harassment at Workplace - Inquiry Procedure - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Section 11 - The Industrial Court set aside the ICC communication dated 30 October 2023 and remanded proceedings to ICC for fresh inquiry following the procedure under the POSH Act and affording due opportunity to all parties. (Paras 2, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is available to the aggrieved woman against a mere communication made by the Internal Complaints Committee that the complaint does not involve an element of sexual harassment
Law Points
- Appeal under Section 18 of POSH Act available only against recommendations under Sections 13(2)
- 13(3)(i)
- 13(3)(ii)
- 14(1)
- 14(2)
- 17 or non-implementation of recommendation
- inquiry under Section 11 requires complaint of sexual harassment under Section 9
- ICC communication that complaint lacks sexual element may not constitute recommendation
- jurisdictional fact of sexual harassment complaint required for ICC inquiry
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 70
Writ Petition No. 7430 of 2026 along with Writ Petition No. 7434 of 2026 and Writ Petition No. 8418 of 2026
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Ms. Shraddha Achliya, Mr. Ankoosh Mehta, Ms. Mansi Chheda, Ms. Arunima Phadke, Mr. Ashish Kamat, Ms. Ankita Singhania, Ms. Madhavi Nalluri, Mr. Karl Tamboly, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Mr. Aseem Naphade, Ms. Vilasini Balasubramanian, Ms. Victoria Gonsalves, Ms. V.R. Raje, Ms. A.A. Nadkarni
Mr. Anup Vikal, Ms. Chandrani Sen, Mr. Rohit Anand
State of Maharashtra and Ors. (including Respondent No. 2 not named)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Industrial Court order allowing an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act and remanding the matter to ICC for fresh inquiry.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the Industrial Court judgment and order dated 4 May 2026, which held the appeal maintainable and set aside the ICC communication dated 30 October 2023.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the Industrial Court's decision that Respondent No. 2's appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act was maintainable and that the ICC communication rejecting the complaint for lack of sexual element should be set aside and remanded.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court allowed Appeal (IESO) No. 3 of 2024 on 4 May 2026, holding the appeal maintainable, setting aside ICC email dated 30 October 2023, and remanding to ICC for inquiry. Earlier, deletion applications were rejected on 20 January 2025; High Court disposed of writ petitions 1730/1731/1733 of 2025 granting liberty to file maintainability applications.
Issues
Whether an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act is available against a mere communication by the ICC that the complaint does not involve an element of sexual harassment
Whether the Industrial Court erred in deciding the main appeal on merits while only maintainability applications were argued
Whether the ICC had jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry when it determined that the complaint lacked any sexual element
Submissions/Arguments
Industrial Court grossly erred in deciding the main appeal itself while only maintainability applications were argued pursuant to pursis filed on 20 April 2026
Industrial Court did not provide reasons for holding the appeal maintainable and went beyond the issue of maintainability without affording opportunity on merits
Appeal under Section 18 of POSH Act is not maintainable because it lies only against recommendations under Sections 13(2), 13(3)(i) or (ii), 14(1) or (2), or 17, or non-implementation of recommendation, and the ICC email was not a recommendation as no inquiry under Section 11 was conducted
Absent a complaint of sexual harassment under Section 9, no inquiry can be conducted; the ICC found the complaint did not contain any allegation of sexual harassment
Reliance placed on judgments of Kerala High Court in Hareesh v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and Ors. and Dr. Prasad Pannian v. Central University of Kerala and Ors.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether a remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is available to the aggrieved woman against a mere communication made by the Internal Complaints Committee that the complaint does not involve an element of sexual harassment is the issue which the Court is tasked upon to decide in the petitions.
The Industrial Court has allowed the Appeal by rejecting Applications preferred by the Petitioners questioning maintainability of the Appeal, and has set aside ICC's communication dated 30 October 2023. The Industrial Court has remanded the proceedings to the ICC with directions to conduct the inquiry by following the procedure contemplated under the POSH Act and by affording due opportunity to all the parties.
That an Appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act can be filed by any person aggrieved by recommendations made under Section 13(2) or 13(3)(i) or (ii) or Section 14(1) or (2) or Section 17 or against non-implementation of a recommendation.
That in the present case, the ICC found that the complaint filed by the Second Respondent did not contain allegation of any sexual harassment and that email of ICC dated 30 October 2023 cannot be called as 'recommendation' under Section 13 of the POSH Act since there has been no inquiry under Section 11.
Procedural History
Respondent No. 2 joined Maple Infra on 1 August 2023 as General Counsel. She tendered resignation on 12 October 2023, but disputes arose over exit terms. On 19 October 2023 she filed complaint before Ethics and Compliance Committee of CDPQ. On 28 October 2023 at 6:22 pm she sent email to ICC of Maple Infra branding it as a POSH complaint. ICC external member communicated on 30 October 2023 that allegations lacked sexual element and were outside ICC jurisdiction. Maple Infra terminated her employment on 30 October 2023. She protested, and on 16 November and 8 December 2023 ICC reiterated rejection. She filed Appeal (IESO) No. 3 of 2024 before Industrial Court under Section 18(1) of POSH Act challenging ICC email dated 30 October 2023. Petitioners applied for deletion; applications rejected on 20 January 2025. Petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos. 1730/1731/1733 of 2025 challenging that order; High Court disposed of them with liberty to file maintainability applications. Petitioners filed maintainability and dismissal applications in February 2025. On 20 April 2026 they filed pursis to decide maintainability first. Industrial Court passed judgment dated 4 May 2026 allowing the appeal, dismissing maintainability applications, setting aside ICC communication, and remanding to ICC. Petitioners then filed the present writ petitions.
Acts & Sections
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013: Section 18, Section 13(2), Section 13(3)(i), Section 13(3)(ii), Section 14(1), Section 14(2), Section 17, Section 11, Section 9
