Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Patel Rajendrakumar Natavarla vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 7 January, 2016

Author: Sonia Gokani

Bench: Sonia Gokani

                 C/SCA/16752/2015                                             ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16752 of 2015

         ==========================================================
                  PATEL RAJENDRAKUMAR NATAVARLA....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR ANVESH V VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         MR AMIT N CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
         MR VH DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
         NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         ==========================================================

                CORAMHONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA
                    : GOKANI

                                    Date : 07/01/2016


                                     ORAL ORDER

1. Shri   Anvesh   Vyas,   learned   counsel   appearing   for  the petitioner, has in support of his submissions  relied   upon   the   decision   of   Apex   Court   in   the  case   of  Vishaka   v.   State   of   Rajasthan   and   others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241, which has  been followed in a decision of the Apex Court in  the case of Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India   and others,  reported  in AIR 2013 SC 93  as well  as a decision of the Apex Court in the case of  Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Tue Jan 12 01:33:33 IST 2016 C/SCA/16752/2015 ORDER Seema   Lepcha   v.   State   of   Sikkim   and   others,   reported in (2013) 11 SCC  641, to urge that the  guidelines   and   directions   issued   by   the   Apex  Court   in   these   decisions   as   well   as   the  provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at  Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)  Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')  have   not   been   complied   with   by   the   respondent­ authority in the case of the petitioner. The Apex  Court   has   been   categorical   in   the   decision   of  Medha   Kotwal   Lele   (supra)   that   the   State  functionaries,   private   and   public   undertakings/  institutions   shall   provide   for   sufficient  mechanism to comply with the directions issued by  the   Apex   Court   in   the   decision   of  Vishaka   (supra).   It   would   be   profitable   to   reproduce  relevant paragraphs from the decision in the case  of Seema Lepcha (supra), which read as under :

"44.   In   what   we   have   discussed   above,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that   guidelines   in   Vishaka   should   not   remain   symbolic   and  the   following   further   directions   are  necessary until legislative enactment on the  subject is in place :
Page 2 of 6
HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Tue Jan 12 01:33:33 IST 2016 C/SCA/16752/2015 ORDER 44.1  The States and Union Territories which   have   not   yet   carried   out   adequate   and  appropriate   amendments   in   their   respective  Civil   Services   Conduct   Rules   (By   whatever  name   these   Rules   are   called)   shall   do   so  within   two   months   from   today   by   providing  that the report of the Complaints Committee  shall be deemed to be an inquiry report in a   disciplinary   action   under   such   Civil  Services Conduct Rules. In other words, the  disciplinary   authority   shall   treat   the  report/findings   etc.of   the   Complaints  Committee as the findings in a disciplinary  inquiry against the delinquent employee and  shall   act   on   such   report   accordingly.   The  findings   and   the   report   of   the   Complaints  Committee   shall   not   be   treated   as   a   mere  preliminary investigation or inquiry leading  to   a   disciplinary   action   but   shall   be  treated   as   a   finding/report   in   an   inquiry  into the misconduct of the delinquent.
44.2  The States and Union Territories which   have   not   carried   out   amendments   in   the  Industrial   Employment   (Standing   Orders)  Rules shall now carry out amendments on the  same   lines,   as   noted   above   in   clause   (i)  within two months.
44.3  The States and Union Territories shall   form   adequate   number   of   Complaints  Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Tue Jan 12 01:33:33 IST 2016 C/SCA/16752/2015 ORDER Committees   so   as   to   ensure   that   they  function at taluka level, district level and   State   level.   Those   States   and/or   Union  Territories   which   have   formed   only   one  Committee   for   the   entire   State   shall   now  form   adequate   number   of   Complaints  Committees   within   two   months   from   today. 

Each of such Complaints Committees shall be  headed by a woman and as far as possible in   such Committees an independent member shall  be associated. 

44.4 The State functionaries and private and   public   sector   undertakings/  organisations/bodies/institutions   etc.shall  put in place sufficient mechanism to ensure  full   implementation   of   the   Vishaka  guidelines   and   further   provide   that   if   the   alleged   harasser   is   found   guilty,   the  complainant ­ victim is not forced to work  with/under   such   harasser   and   where  appropriate   and   possible   the   alleged  harasser   should   be   transferred.   Further  provision should be made that harassment and   intimidation   of   witnesses   and   the   complainants   shall   be   met   with   severe  disciplinary action.

44.5 The Bar Council of India shall ensure   that all bar associations in the country and   persons   registered   with   the   State   Bar  Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Tue Jan 12 01:33:33 IST 2016 C/SCA/16752/2015 ORDER Councils   follow   the   Vishaka   guidelines.  Similarly, Medical Council of India, Council   of   Architecture,   Institute   of   Chartered  Accountants,   Institute   of   Company  Secretaries   and   other   statutory   Institutes  shall ensure that the organisations, bodies,   associations,   institutions   and   persons  registered/affiliated   with   them   follow   the  guidelines laid down by Vishaka. To achieve  this, necessary instructions/circulars shall  be issued by all the statutory bodies such  as Bar Council of India, Medical Council of  India, Council of Architecture, Institute of  Company   Secretaries   within   two   months   from  today. On receipt of any complaint of sexual   harassment at any of the places referred to  above   the   same   shall   be   dealt   with   by   the   statutory   bodies   in   accordance   with   the  Vishaka guidelines and the guidelines in the   present order.

45.  We are of the view that if there is any  non­compliance   or   non­adherence   to   the  Vishaka   guidelines,   orders   of   this   Court  following Vishaka and the above directions,  it will be open to the aggrieved persons to  approach   the   respective   High   Courts.   The  High   Court   of   such   State   would   be   in   a  better position to effectively consider the  grievances raised in that regard."

Page 5 of 6

HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Tue Jan 12 01:33:33 IST 2016 C/SCA/16752/2015 ORDER

2. Having   heard   both   the   sides   for   a   while   and  having   also   taken   note   of   the   Women   Complaints  Redressal   Committee   formed   at   the   level   of   the  District Education Officer, the respondent­State  shall place on record by way of an affidavit­in­ reply   to   be   filed   by   an   officer   not   below   the  rank of the Joint Secretary, as to in what manner  the   decision   in   the   case   of  Vishaka   (supra),   which has been followed in a decision of the Apex  Court in the case of  Medha   Kotwal   Lele   (supra)   as well as a decision of the Apex Court in the  case of Seema Lepcha (supra), have been complied  with. 

  Let the matter appear on January 13, 2016.

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Aakar Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Tue Jan 12 01:33:33 IST 2016