Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The factual matrix set forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the respondent Bank in the year 2011 and was promoted to the post of Manager (Grade-B) in 2016. In 2018, the petitioner raised allegations of sexual harassment against a senior official, citing instances of sexually coloured remarks and a hostile work environment. However, no remedial or protective measures were undertaken by the respondent in accordance with the mandate of the POSH Act. Instead, the petitioner was subjected to a transfer, without being afforded an opportunity of hearing.

4. A preliminary hearing, in context of the allegations raised by the petitioner was conducted in November 2018 by a committee not constituted in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act. The said committee closed the petitioner's complaint without any fact-finding exercise. Upon appeal, the matter was taken up by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) at the respondent Bank's Head Office in Mumbai, where a settlement was arrived at under Section 102 of the POSH Act, leading to the withdrawal of the complaint. The petitioner contends that despite conciliation, she continued to face a hostile work environment.

19. It is further submitted that the petitioner was constrained to proceed on leave from October 2020, owing to the persistent hostile work environment and continued harassment pursuant to her complaints. The respondent Bank failed to take remedial or protective measures as mandated under the POSH Act, thereby adding to the petitioner's distress and compelling her to disengage from active service.

(2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 426] and Richa Mishra case [Richa Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 4 SCC 179 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 583] , therefore, any interpretation, of the provisions of the SHW Act, which downplays, or impedes complete achievement and implementation of, one or more of these objectives, has to be firmly eschewed."

72. The POSH Act is not merely a procedural framework, it is a protective statute designed to ensure that women are able to work in a safe environment free from fear, intimidation and retaliation. The petitioner's absence from work must be viewed in the context of her apprehension of a hostile work environment, which remained unaddressed due to institutional lapses. This Court finds no impediment in holding that the respondent's failure to effectively address the petitioner's complaint of sexual harassment constitutes a breach of the underlying principles and objectives of the Vishaka guidelines as well as the statutory mandate of the POSH Act. Permitting adverse service action during pendency of ICC proceedings would have a chilling effect, discouraging the victim of sexual harassment from reporting the same thereby defeating the preventive and deterrent purpose of the POSH Act.