By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
Introduction
When Decency, Not Intent, Becomes the Yardstick of Conduct
In the realm of workplace conduct, a powerful shift is taking place-one that rightly prioritizes impact over intent. In the context of sexual harassment, what matters is not what was meant, but how it was received. And the law is clear: it is not the intention of the accused, but the experience of the aggrieved woman that forms the crux of the matter.
“The standard of reasonableness is not the standard of a reasonable man but the standard of a reasonable woman,” as aptly observed by the Hon’ble U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Oncale vs. Sundowner Offshore Services.
This statement serves as a powerful reminder that perspectives matter, and in a gendered society, the lens through which we evaluate conduct must be sensitive to how women experience and internalize inappropriate behavior.
Recently, the Madras High Court reaffirmed this principle, stating unequivocally that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 also known as the POSH Act, the emphasis lies on the act itself, not the intention behind it.
The bench of Hon’ble Ms. Justice R.N. Manjula [1]observed that if a woman experiences a particular conduct as unwelcome, inappropriate, or disturbing, it squarely falls within the definition of sexual harassment-regardless of whether the person engaging in the conduct intended it to be harmless or humorous.
The Court also cautioned that the workplace is a professional environment where decency must be the fundamental standard of interaction. It is not a social gathering where banter and informality can override boundaries. When such acts escalate to the level of criminal offenses, the intention may then become relevant for prosecution under criminal law. But under the POSH framework, the threshold is clear-unwelcome behavior, once felt and reported, is sufficient.
“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”
These remarks were made by the court while quashing an order of the Labour Court that had overturned the findings of the Internal Committee of HCL Technologies.
Facts of the Case:
The case pertained to a 2017 complaint lodged against a senior employee who held a supervisory post under the designation ‘Service Delivery Manager’, alleging multiple instances of sexual harassment by three of his female subordinates. [2]
Accusations levelled by women employees includes:
- One of the women employee (‘A’) alleged that the accused indulged in an unwelcome physical contact by hovering close to her when she was seated. Such contact would take place even when the accused had no connection with the project at work. She further stated that he would sometimes give inappropriate looks and insisted to give handshake.
- The other staff (‘B’) alleged that the accused had verbally harassed her by repeatedly asking her physical measurements and making her to feel extremely uncomfortable. She had stated that the accused had leaned close to her, touched her shoulder and asked her to remove her garment for the purpose of measurement.
- The other complainant (‘C’) alleged that the accused was inquisitively asked her about her menstrual cycles.
On receiving the above-referred complaints, an enquiry was initiated by the Internal Committee.
The accused defended himself before the IC stating that:
- With regard to allegations of first complainant, he stated that as a person in a supervisory capacity, it was part of his work to supervise the team’s work without disturbing them and he would usually observe the men’s work also by standing behind them and hence that should not be construed as harassment.
- So far as second complaint is concerned, the accused denied the allegation stating that he only insisted to give the size in order to distribute the ladies overcoat gifted by a Saudi customer for the lady staffs.
- It was also the submission of the accused that there is a possibility that some of the complainants who fell under his direct supervision could have made revengeful statements in order to wreck their vengeance.
The explanation of the accused were not accepted by the IC and at the end of enquiry, the IC found that the behavior of the accused was highly inappropriate and it amounted to sexual harassment.
Therefore, the following recommendations were made by the IC on August 31, 2018 which included: ‘revoking his supervisory responsibilities, restricting his role to India, and withholding salary increments and perks for two years’.
Appeal before the Labour Court:
Aggrieved by the above recommendations, the accused preferred an appeal before the Labour Court.
The Labour Court had reversed the findings of the IC by holding that the accused was not given a fair opportunity of hearing and consequently set aside the harassment complaints vide order dated December 11, 2019.
The grounds for setting aside the IC recommendations were that the CCTV footage was not furnished to the accused at his request and that the accused conducted the cross-examination vide written communication instead of oral communication. Hence, the IC had failed to conduct a fair inquiry by not following the principles of natural justice.
Appeal before the Madras High Court
In light of the same, the petitioner (i.e., the Employer of the organization) preferred an appeal challenging the order of the Labour Court, submitting that the Labour Court had gone beyond its jurisdiction and ought not to have interfered with the proceedings of the IC except there is a non-compliance of fairness.
Legal Issues before the Madras High Court:
- Did the Labour Court made a mistake in overturning the Internal Complaints Committee’s recommendation based on the non-disclosure of CCTV footage to the respondent?
- Does the respondent’s actions standing in close proximity to the complainants and touching their shoulders and asking personal questions in relation to their physic and biological health constitute sexual harassment?
The Court in response criticized the assessment of the Labour Court and by Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the court rightly remarked that
“The complainants felt the gestures of the respondent (accused) as embarrassing and unwelcome. In an institution like the petitioner’s where both men and women work, interaction between both the sexes are inevitable. At some times physical gesture like handshake, touching the shoulders might also happen between the opposite sexes also but what really matters is how those gestures are felt by the recipient. In these kinds of allegations, feelings of the complainants matter a lot than the statement of other witnesses or the visuals that might or might not have been recorded in the CCTV’s fixed in office premises.”
Further, the court did not find any material on record that disclose any ulterior motive for the complainants or the employer to give a false complaint against the accused.
In addition, the court criticized the assessment of the Labour Court for endorsing the accused claims that non-furnishing of CCTV footage had deprived him to get a fair opportunity.
The court reiterated the ruling passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. P.K Roy wherein it was stated that “the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned with the straight-jacket or a rigid formula and its application depends upon several factors.”
The Court explicitly remarked that “there is no misunderstanding in the mind of the complainants before giving the complaints against the accused. 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.”
The Madras High court also emphasized that the labour court should not have intervened in the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) except under specific circumstances.
- where the order was contrary to law,
- where significant and relevant factors were not considered,
- Where irrelevant considerations influenced the decision, or
- Where no reasonable person would have taken such a decision, and it is contrary to the doctrine of proportionality.
In view of the above stated reasons, the court quashed the order of the Labour Court vide order dated January 22, 2025.
The Court in the present judgement reinforced several legal principles:
- Victim’s Perception over Intent: This ruling underscores a crucial principle of the POSH Act: the experience and perception of the victim carry more weight than the claimed intent of the accused.
- Reasonable women standard: drawing from the U.S. Supreme Court case Joseph Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. 1998, the court adopted the reasonable women standard to evaluate claims of sexual harassment.
- Decency in Workplace Interaction: the court emphasized that workplace interaction must adhere to standard of decency and professionalism.
The judgment not only upholds the findings of the IC but serves as a strong message to employers and employees alike- that workplace decency is defined by how one’s conduct is received, not merely by how it is meant.
- Power Dynamics: The court emphasized the power dynamics being involved in cases of sexual harassment at workplaces. For instance, in this case also the complainants are juniors or subordinate to the accused and the accused is expected to conduct himself in a manner that he does not cause a feeling of discomfort embarrassment. His postures or gestures while standing closer to women employee should be compatible to the purpose and object of the work and not beyond that.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s ruling marks an advancement in the fight against workplace sexual harassment. It noted the necessity of fostering a safe and respectful work environment for women and reinforces the responsibility of employers to implement proactive measures to prevent sexual harassment. As observed by the court, ensuring workplace dignity and security is paramount in protecting employee’s rights and well-being.[3]
Surbhi Gandotra, Associate Advocate at S.S.Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
[1] W.P. No. 5463 of 2020
[2] https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/hcl-technologies-ltd-v-n-parsarathy-582974.pdf