Court Rules Director as Employee, Not Employer, Under PoSH Act
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has upheld the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to inquire into a sexual harassment complaint filed against Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai, the Director of Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC). The division bench, comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., dismissed the writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's decision, which had dismissed the petition filed by Dr. Pillai.
The appeal revolved around the question of whether the Director of IRTC should be classified as an "employer" or an "employee" under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act). Dr. Pillai contended that as the Director, he fell under the definition of "employer," and thus, the complaint should be adjudicated by the Local Committee (LC) rather than the ICC. However, the court found that the control, administration, and management of IRTC are vested with the General Body and the Executive Committee, making the Director an "employee" subject to their supervision.
The bench emphasized that the Director is appointed by the Executive Committee and operates under its guidance. Consequently, the ICC, constituted according to the PoSH Act, retains the jurisdiction to investigate the complaint. The court clarified that the ICC's role is crucial in cases where the complaint is against an employee of the organization, reinforcing the committee's authority in ensuring workplace safety and addressing grievances.
The ruling underscores the judicial interpretation of the PoSH Act, reiterating that the hierarchical structure and the functional dynamics within organizations determine the classification under the Act. This judgment is expected to have significant implications for organizational governance and the handling of sexual harassment cases across workplaces.
The appellant's claims of conflict of interest and allegations of bias against the complainant, who was also a member of the ICC, were addressed by the assurance that she would not participate in the decision-making process concerning this complaint.
Bottom line:-
Under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, if the complaint is against the employer or an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is not constituted, the matter must be referred to the Local Committee (LC). However, a director who is appointed and supervised by an executive committee and general body can be treated as an employee under the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 2(f), 2(g), 4, 6, and 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
