It is most significant to note that while ruling on a very pertinent legal point pertaining to sexual harassment, the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled HCL Technologies Ltd vs N Parsarathy in W.P. No.5643 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.6594 of 2020 & 25713 of 2021 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:MHC:202 that was reserved on 24.10.2024 and then finally pronounced on 22.01.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that:
Any act or words that make a woman feel uncomfortable at her workplace, or are perceived by her as being unwelcome constitute an act of sexual harassment as defined under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) irrespective of the perpetrator’s intent behind such actions. We must note that in its decisive verdict, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice RN Manjula invoked the ‘reasonable woman standard’ and held explicitly that the PoSH Act prioritises how a victim perceives a behaviour and not necessarily the intentions of the harasser. It was also made indubitably clear by the Bench in this regard when it also observed that:
If something is not received well and it is inappropriate and felt as an unwelcome behaviour affecting the other sex, namely the women, no doubt it would fall under the definition of ‘sexual harassment’.
We also need to pay attention here that the Bench while citing a US Supreme Court ruling pointed out plainly stating that:
In Joseph Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.523 U.S 75(1998), the U.S Supreme Court has observed that in the matter of complaints given for sexual harassment in work places, the standard of reasonableness is not the standard of a reasonable man but the standard of reasonable woman. The Bench also maintained that corporate employees are expected to understand that they must interact with their colleagues while maintaining certain levels of decency. Moreover, such yardstick of decent behaviour must be assessed through the lens of how such behaviour makes others, particularly women, feel. The Bench had held so while quashing and setting aside an order that had been passed by a Labour Court that had overturned the findings of sexual harassment that had been arrived at by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of multi-national corporation, HCL Technologies against one of its senior employees.
At the very outset, this sagacious judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice RN Manjula of Madras High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai dated 11.12.2016 made in Standing Order Appeal No.1 of 2018.
As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 2 stating that:
The above Standing Order Appeal has been preferred by the respondent to set aside the recommendations of Internal Complaints Committee of the petitioner’s company furnished to him on 30.08.2018.
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 disclosing that:
The respondent joined in the petitioner’s company as an Associate General Manager in pursuant to the appointment letter dated 28.03.2016. The petitioner’s company has got Internal Complaints Committee (in short ICC) constituted under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short PoSH Act) in order to look into the complaints arising under the Act. The members of the ICC has been constituted in terms of the commissions of the Act.
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that:
The respondent was working as a Service Delivery Manager in the first respondent company since the year 2016. The respondent has been brought to enquiry before ICC twice within a span of few years of his appointment. There was an allegation of sexual harassment against him in the year 2017 and on an enquiry made by ICC, he was found guilty for his inappropriate behaviour under the PoSH Act. Even thereafter the petitioner company has received many sexual harassment complaints against the respondent from many women who are working under him. The respondent held a supervisory post under the designation Service Delivery Manager and several employees work under his supervision. The safety of women employees is the utmost concern of the petitioner’s company and it endeavours to create a safe and conducive workplace for women.
While elaborating further, the Bench lays bare in para 5 disclosing that, During the year 2018 one of the women employee by name A (hereinafter called as first complainant) had alleged that the respondent indulged in an unwelcome physical contact by hovering close to her when she was seated. During enquiry, the said complainant disclosed that such contact would take place even when the respondent had no connection with the project at work. The other staff by name B (hereinafter called second complainant) alleged that the respondent had verbally harassed her by repeatedly asking her physical measurements and making her to feel extremely uncomfortable.
She had stated that the respondent had leaned closed to her, touched her shoulder and asked her to remove her garment for the purpose of measurement. The other complainant by name C (hereinafter referred as third complainant) had complained that the respondent was inquisitively asked her about her menstrual cycles. On receiving the complaints from the complainants 1 and 2, enquiry was initiated and at the end of the enquiry, ICC found that the behaviour of the respondent was highly in appropriate and it amounted to sexual harassment.
Do note, the Bench notes in para 6 that:
The ICC has made the following recommendations:
- Along with a final warning letter, the Respondent to be made an individual contributor – should not be given a supervisory role; and his work location to be limited to India only.
- He will not be eligible for a pay rise or any other related benefits for the next two years.
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 7 that:
Aggrieved by the above recommendations, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Labour Court and the Labour Court had reversed the findings of the ICC by holding that the respondent was not given with fair opportunity of hearing and consequently set aside the harassment complaints. As the Principal Labour Court has not properly appreciated the facts made before it, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order of the Principal Labour Court made in Standing order appeal No.1/2018 dated 11.12.2019.
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 30 that:
In Joseph Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.523 U.S 75(1998), the U.S. Supreme Court has observed that in the matter of complaints given for sexual harassment in work places, the standard of reasonableness is not the standard of a reasonable man but the standard of reasonable woman.
Most significantly, the Bench postulates in para 32 stating that:
The committee was also conscious of the fact that the respondent stood in a supervisory capacity who was superior to the complainant woman and ensured fairness by designing a type of enquiry which is suitable and appropriate to serve the interest of both the parties. But the above nuances were not properly appreciated by the Labour Court and the Labour Court had set aside the inquiry report just because the CCTV footages were not given to the respondent. It has been already stated that the respondent’s act has caused a feeling of embarrassment and discomfort in the mind of complainants. The respondent did not deny the fact that he was standing near the complainant but had justified that it was his duty to supervise the works of the complainant. So the CCTV footage and the visuals cannot help him to prove or disprove the intention. All that can be understood is how it was felt by the recipients who are the complainants.
What also needs to be taken into account is that the Bench observes in para 36 that:
Regarding the appreciation of materials in the charges of sexual harassment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K.Chopra reported in AIR 1999 SC 625, that the Court cannot overlook the ground realities and ignore the conduct of the respondent against his junior female employees. In the instant case also the complainants are juniors or subordinate to the respondent and the respondent is expected to conduct himself in such a manner that he does not cause a feeling of discomfort embarrassment. His postures or gestures while standing closer to the women employee should be compatible to the purpose and object of the work and not beyond that.
It would have been a different case if the complainants had exaggerated the usual and routine interaction as a case of sexual harassment. There is no misunderstanding in the mind of the complainants before giving the complaints against the respondent. Their statements and the materials placed on record would show that in the name of performing duty the respondent had put the complainants in an embarrassing and an uneasy position. No doubt such kind of gestures either physical, verbal or non verbal, are unwelcome ones.
What we cannot afford to gloss over is that the Bench then points out in para 37 that:
The definition of sexual harassment as it is seen from the PoSH Act has given significance to the act than the intention behind the same. In the event of such actions are reported as criminal offense then the prosecution may be expected to prove the intention also. It is the fundamental discipline and understanding with which the employees of different gender are expected to interact with each other where decency is the yardstick and nothing else. While speaking about the decency it is not the decency which the respondent thinks within himself, but how he makes the other gender to feel about his actions.
It also cannot be lost sight of that the Bench then also points out in para 38 that:
The ICC appears to be sensitive and reasonable in its approach during the process of inquiry and had formulated its own method of ensuring fairness in giving opportunities to both the complainant and the respondent. Strict rules of evidence has got no application to the type of inquiry that is being made by the ICC on the charges of sexual harassment against the women employees.
More to the point, the Bench propounds in para 39 that:
As the inquiry is a quasi judicial one, it is sufficient to come at a logical conclusion basing upon the materials which are relevant to the issue. In the given circumstances of the case, if the statements of witnesses, if appreciated holistically that would only make out the charges as alleged against the respondent. Not yielding to hyper-technicalities even when the respondent pulled the inquiring authority, can also be considered as a feature of fairness during inquiry. The Labour Court ought not to have given much significance to the non-furnishing of CCTV footage to the respondent. The nature of the complaint, the constitution of the ICC, the course of inquiry and the findings of the ICC are seen to be interlinked with each other and the committee did not wander over and beyond the scope of inquiry with any malicious intention against the respondent.
As a corollary, the Bench directs in para 40 holding that:
In view of the above stated reasons and in view of the short sighted appreciation of the Labour Court, I feel the order of the Labour Court is liable to be quashed.
Finally, we see that the Bench then draws the curtains of this notable judgment by holding in para 41 that:
In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the Standing Order Appeal No.1/2018 dated 11.12.2019 on the file of the Principal Labour Court at Chennai, is hereby quashed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
