Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The enquiry is nothing but an eye wash because the same was conducted without following any procedure which had to be mandatorily followed.”
Court explained that POSH Act does not expressly prohibit the Appellate Authority to pass an interim order and once the appellate authority has the power to set aside impugned proceedings, it can be construed that the appellate authority also has implied power to consider passing of interim order of stay as well.
The Court directed the company’s Internal Complaints Committee to hold an enquiry into the complaint of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of PoSH Act, 2013 and complete the process as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 90 days.
Take a quick glance at what the High Courts were discussing in this late Monsoon season
“The intervenor created an impossible situation of stalemate in herself, bringing the proceedings of the ICC to a standstill and demanding reconstitution of committee which is not contemplated under the POSH Act.”
“Sexual harassment causes considerable harm to women. Harassment undermines women’s workplace authority, reduces them to sexual objects and reinforces sexual stereotypes and inappropriate gender behaviour. It can have deleterious consequences for the mental and physical health of women”.
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, the issue of limitation could not have been decided by the local committee at the threshold stage without evidence.
The Supreme Court attributed the reluctance on the part of victims of Sexual Harassment at workplace to report the misconduct to, (i) uncertainty about who to approach under the Act for redressal of their grievance; and (ii) lack of confidence in the process and its outcome.
Bombay High Court: While addressing an issue revolving around the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,
“[Sexual harassment] can be perpetrated by the members of any gender, even inter se.” Calcutta High Court: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. held that
Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.has framed an eminent question for determination which will have an impact on the dispensation of justice