Scope of law against sexual harassment is not limited to cases in same dept: Delhi HC

The bench said any interpretation of the provisions of the Act which “downplays, or impedes complete achievement and implementation of, one or more of these objectives, has to be firmly eschewed”.

The observations came in a plea moved by a 2010 batch IRS officer accused of allegedly sexually harassing an officer in a different department. The complainant filed a complaint before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) – constituted under Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of her department—the Department of Food and Public Distribution under the Union Ministry of Consumer and Public Distribution.

The IRS officer received a meeting notice dated June 13 from the Committee, scheduling a hearing on the complaint on June 22 and asking him to appear before it. However, the officer moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) questioning the jurisdiction of the Committee to examine the complaint.

The Tribunal in its June 23 order rejected the IRS officer’s challenge and dismissed his application pursuant to which he moved the Delhi High Court.

While dismissing his plea, the high court said there is no such exception which can be read into the Act and that “they are convinced that the answer has to be negative”. “In view of the aforesaid, we find a reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal…Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed in limine,” the HC said.

However, the High Court said the hearing of the complaint of the ICC which had been preponed to June 30 will not take place on July 4 and if the petitioner seeks “further time” he can make a request to the Committee which would “consider it sympathetically and, if possible, adjust the petitioner in that regard”.

The IRS officer has said that reading the provisions of the Act clearly indicates that the Committee of one department cannot conduct an inquiry even if it is on a complaint by an officer in the said department against an employee who belongs to another department. It is not, therefore, within the disciplinary control of the department where the complainant is working, he added.

The court, however, said that such an interpretation, in its opinion, would “strike at the very root” of the Act, and its “ethos and philosophy”.

“…we are of the opinion that the SHWW Act does not insulate, from action thereunder, men who sexually harass women in offices other than those in which they are themselves working… Having read Section 11(1), we are in agreement with the learned Tribunal in its finding that there is nothing in the said provision which would restrict its application only to cases where the respondent i.e., the officer against whom sexual harassment is being alleged, is the employee of the department where the complainant is working,” the HC said.

The court also said under Section 13 of the Act if the employer who has to take action on the basis of the findings of the Committee is the head of a department other than that in which the complainant-employee is working, there is “no embargo” under the Act on the findings of Committee being “forwarded to that employer”, who has “disciplinary control over the alleged perpetrator of sexual harassment, to take action on the basis thereof”.