Madras High Court in its recent judgement has categorically stated that ‘women employees cannot be allowed to misuse the Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and harass someone with an ‘exaggerated or non-existent allegations’.
The High Court has observed a solitary allegation of intemperate language against a woman employee does not constitute an offence under the law on sexual harassment at workplace and the act cannot be allowed to be misused with exaggerated or non-existent charges.
Case:
- A woman officer had lodged a complaint on December 2, 2013 against V Natarajan, Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and GI, Intellectual Property of India, Chennai, accusing him of high-handed and arrogant behaviour, causing hurt to her self-respect
- The Registrar and Controller General set up an internal complaints committee (ICC) as per the act
- Subsequently, she made another complaint against the senior central government official narrating many incidents about the “rude behavior”, in which she mentioned the word “sexual harassment” at several places
- Later, the lady wrote to the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women expressing apprehension that the ICC would not render justice as her complaint was against the head of department
- Subsequently, based on an enquiry by the District Social Welfare Officer who found prima facie case, the district Local Complaints Committee (LCC) had recommended a detailed departmental enquiry against Natarajan
- Meanwhile, the CAT allowed a plea by the complainant challenging the constitution of the ICC
- However, the petitioner’s (Natarajan’s) appeal was dismissed by the tribunal, following which he moved the high court
Allowing a petition by the alleged accused, a bench of Justices M Sathyanarayanan and R Hemalatha quashed orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the district Local Complaints Committee (LCC) against him. The bench said,
The complainant, it appears, made a futile attempt to settle her personal score with the petitioner. Every office has to maintain certain decorum and women employees cannot be allowed to go scot-free without completing their assignments.
ALSO READ –
#MeToo Survey | Organisations Don’t Want To Hire Women | Male Bosses Shying Away From Meeting Them
It further added,
If a woman employee was discriminated against due to her inefficiency or for any other official reasons, the recourse for her is not the one taken by this complainant.
Though the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is intended to have an equal standing for women in the work place and to have a cordial workplace in which their dignity and self- respect are protected, it cannot be allowed to be misused by women to harass someone with an exaggerated or nonexistent allegations.
The court also noted that the woman’s first complaint in 2013 was generic and its essence was “intemperate” language used by the officer and ‘bias’ shown against her.
But the February 17, 2016 complaint before the LCC smacked of ‘tutoring’ and talked about “physical advances” and “lewd remarks” though it did not mention any date or sequence of events in support.
ALSO READ –
Tanushree Dutta Abuses Aamir Khan; Will The Reverse Be Acceptable To This #MeTooIndia Flag Bearer?
The bench said,
This also appears to be an afterthought. Therefore, a solitary allegation of intemperate language against a female employee does not constitute an offence” under the act.
It gives an appearance that instructing a woman employee to do something officially or even scolding a woman employee itself is sexual harassment.
Granting relief to Natarajan, it also said the Administrative Head or the Chief has every right to extract work and he or she has his or her own discretion and prerogatives.
It held the CAT erred in concluding that the petitioner was the employer as defined under the act and therefore the ICC would not have any relevance while the LCC gave an erroneous decision with a non-speaking order which was also ex-parte.
The court also faulted the woman officer for “defiant attitude” in not attending the ICC hearing and for approaching the state commission for women.
ALSO READ –
http://voiceformenindia.com/his-story/swaroop-raj-genpact/
Follow www.mensdayout.com on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
If you find value in our work, you may choose to donate to Voice For Men Foundation via Milaap OR via UPI: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank (80G tax exemption applicable)
Follow Us
