Bombay High Court: In the present case, the petition challenged judgment and order dated 1-7-2024 passed by the Member Industrial Court, Pune (‘the Industrial Court’) dismissing a case filed under provisions of Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and report dated 30-9-2022 passed by the Internal Complaints Committee (‘the ICC’) of Respondent 2-HDFC Sales (P) Ltd.
A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., stated that the incident where the petitioner commented about the complainant’s length and volume of her hair by saying that she must be using JCB to manage her hair, could not mean that it was made with an intent of causing any sexual harassment to the complainant. The Court held that the findings recorded by the Industrial Court were clearly perverse as it failed to consider the exact nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner. The Court thus set aside the judgment and order dated 1-7-2024 passed by the Industrial Court.
Background
In report dated 30-9-2022, the ICC reproduced three broad allegations against the petitioner, first, the complainant stated that the petitioner by looking at the length and volume of her hair, passed a comment that, “you must be using JCB to manage your hair” and thereafter started singing a song related to her hair. Second, the petitioner passed a sexual remark on a male employee’s private part and third, one of the employees raised a complaint against her Reporting Manager that she used to check her out and use to casually discuss her attire with the other male colleagues.
The ICC, after conducting the enquiry, observed that the petitioner, though agreed to some of the charges, was not willing to accept the others, even though he had been informed that the ICC had multiple witnesses who confirmed all the allegations.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court after considering the nature of comment made by the petitioner towards the complainant, opined that it was difficult to believe that the same was made with an intent of causing any sexual harassment to the complainant and she herself never perceived the comment as sexual harassment when the comment was made.
The Court noted that the comment was made on 11-6-2022, however, the WhatsApp conversation between the petitioner and the complainant post 11-6-2022 indicated that the petitioner motivated the complainant regarding performance of her work and the complainant had expressed gratitude towards the efforts of the petitioner. Therefore, if the allegations of the first incident were accepted to be proved, then it would be difficult to hold that the petitioner committed any act of sexual harassment.
The Court, regarding the second incident stated that the same related to making of remarks by the petitioner in respect of another male employee when other female employees were present, and it was not indicated that the complainant was present when the alleged remark was made. Therefore, it could not be believed that the conduct in the second incident would cause any sexual harassment personally to the complainant. Further, regarding the third incident, the Court stated that the allegation was not directed against the petitioner but against the Reporting Manager, who herself was a female employee.
The Court opined that the first two incidents related to allegations against the petitioner, but even if they were taken to be proved, concrete inference of causing sexual harassment to the complainant could not be drawn.
The Court stated that the ICC merely made vague recommendations by recording a general finding that ‘all serious allegations were confirmed by multiple witnesses that were interviewed by the committee’ and apart from this finding, there was no discussion in the ICC’s report about the evidence appearing on record in respect of each article of charge. The Court stated that the ICC did not consider the important issue that whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner in first two incidents really constituted sexual harassment to the complainant.
The Court held that the findings recorded by the Industrial Court were clearly perverse as it failed to consider the exact nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the petitioner. The Industrial Court completely ignored the fact that even if the allegations were taken as proved, no case of sexual harassment of the complainant was made out in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
The Court allowed the petition, and the judgment and order dated 1-7-2024 passed by the Industrial Court as well as the ICC’s report dated 30-9-2022 were set aside.
[X v. Presiding Officer (ICC), 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 659, decided on 18-3-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Sana Raees Khan a/w Juhi Kadu and Sanskriti Yagnik for the Petitioner.
