
By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
If you have ever wondered whether a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 also known as the POSH Act can be entertained beyond the prescribed time limit, the recent judgment delivered by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on November 28, 2024 provides valuable insights. The judgment delves into the provisions of Section 9 of the POSH Act, which sets a prescribed timeframe for filing complaints
Introduction
The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M.A. B vs. Principal Chief of Commissioner and Ors, shedding light on the critical importance of adhering to statutory timelines under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 also known as the POSH Act.[1]
Facts of the Case:
- The case centers around Mr. Bhat, a senior officer in the Income Tax Department, who faced allegations of harassment from a female subordinate holding a position of a tax assistant (Respondent 4).
- The complaint originated from an incident dated April 25, 2016. Initially the respondent lodged a complaint in 2016, which was withdrawn as she was not able to substantiate her allegations against the petitioner.
- Despite this, the respondent escalated the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar resulting in the registration of an FIR under Section 354 of the RPC. The case proceeded to trial, culminating in the petitioner’s acquittal in September 2018.
- However, parallel to these legal proceedings, the respondent, in October 16, 2016 filed another complaint before the Internal Committee (IC) regarding the same alleged incident that occurred on April 25, 2016 and that too after a delay of more than one year and five months from the date of the alleged incident (i.e., April 25, 2016)
- Subsequent to the filing of reply by the petitioner before the IC against the said complaint, the IC conducted an inquiry and framed a report in the said complaint on February 25, 2021 and made a recommendation of imposing of a fine of INR 1 lakh upon the petitioner to be payable to the respondent.
- Aggrieved by the IC recommendations, the petitioner maintained the instant petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, essentially on the ground that the entire proceedings before the IC are non-est, without jurisdiction and initiative of the principles of natural justice and procedure established by the law.
Submissions of the Petitioner:
- Delay in Filing Complaint:
The legal counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the complaint filed against the petitioner could not have been taken cognizance of by the IC in view of the statutory limitation period outlined under Section 9(1) proviso 2 of the POSH Act which envisages that an aggrieved woman may make a complaint in writing of sexual harassment at workplace to the Internal Committee within a period of three months from the date of incident and in case of series of incidents within a period of three months from the date of last incident and in terms of proviso 2 appended to sub-section (1), the said period of three months for making the complaint has been made extendable to a further period of three months provided the circumstances suggest that the woman was prevented from filing the complaint within the said period. - Acquittal in criminal case:
It was highlighted that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the same alleged incident. - Violation of Principle of Natural Justice:
It was contended that the ICC proceedings were flawed and deprived him of fair opportunity to defend himself.
Submissions of the Respondent
- The legal counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the acts of sexual harassment had been committed by the petitioner herein against the respondent regularly and one such incident dated April 25, 2016 had been referred in the complaint filed by the respondent, however, not disputing and denying the fact that the formal complaint before IC came to be filed on October 16, 2017, whereupon the IC proceeded to make a recommendation on February 25, 2021.
- It was further submitted that the recommendations of the IC were made upon holding of a full-dressed inquiry into the matter.
Court Analysis and Judgment:
In view of the aforesaid rival submissions of appearing counsel for both the parties, the court deems it appropriate in the first instance to address to the preliminary objections raised by appearing counsel for the petitioner, to the maintainability of the complaint filed by the respondent before the IC beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 9 of the POSH Act.
The court observed that the respondent admittedly filed the complaint before IC on October 16, 2017 in respect of the alleged incident dated April 25, 2016 much beyond the period prescribed for filing complaint under POSH Act. Hence, under these circumstances, the court held that the complaint filed by the respondent could not have been either entertained or else taken cognizance by the IC.
Reliance was drawn towards the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in case titled “K. P. P. N vs. P T.C. and Ors[2]” wherein it was held that the authority under the Act of 2013, had no power to act upon a complaint and pass orders thereon filed before it, beyond the condonable period of limitation of 3 months provided under proviso 2 of Section 9(1).
Thus, the preliminary objection qua the maintainability of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner before IC raised by counsel for the petitioner, was found to be legally sustainable rendering the impugned complaint filed by respondent, taken cognizance of by the IC and the recommendation made therein illegal and invalid on the basis of settled position of law that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, that thing has to be done in that manner alone.
Thus, the instant petition accordingly is allowed and consequently the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner before the IC, along with recommendations made thereon by the IC shall stand quashed.
The judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justice Mr. Javed Iqbal Wani underscores the relevance of adhering to procedural safeguards under the POSH Act to ensure fairness and justice. While the POSH Act aims to protect women from sexual harassment at workplaces, this judgment highlights the need to balance the rights of the accused against procedural excesses.
Contrary View: Delhi High Court’s Division Bench Judgment
A contrasting stance concerning the limitation period was observed in X vs. District Magistrate (South) and Another (2019)[3], wherein the complainant’s grievance was dismissed by the Local Committee (LC) for being filed beyond the prescribed three months.
Subsequently, the complainant approached the single judge of the Delhi High Court who also upheld the Local Committee’s dismissal of the complaint, emphasizing procedural compliance and observing that the complaint was indeed time-barred under the POSH Act,
Aggrieved by the same, the complainant escalated the matter to the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to challenge the dismissal. The Division Bench overturned the single bench’s ruling and set aside the LC report. It observed that the complaint was dismissed solely on account of the limitation period without considering substantive issues of justice and hence directed the LC to conduct a fresh inquiry, considering the newly submitted evidence. It further emphasized that the LC must pass a well-reasoned and speaking order, reflecting a comprehensive consideration of all aspects.
The case of X vs. District Magistrate exemplifies the dynamic interplay between procedural law and substantive justice under the POSH Act. It reinforces the principle that while procedural technicalities and rules are indispensable, they should not override the pursuit of substantive justice, especially in sensitive cases under the POSH Act.
[1] https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/display-9241205155831-576451.pdf