Airline convicted for failure to form Internal Committee under POSH Act

Sreeleja Nair Vs Sri Lanka Airlines Ltd. (Patiala House Court)

Conclusion: The accused Srilankan Airlines was convicted for the offence u/s 26 of Sexual Harassment for Women at work place (Prevention, Prohibtion and Redressal Act) 2013 as the accused had violated Section 4 (1) of Sexual Harassment of Women (Prevention Prohibition and Redressal Act) 2013.

Held: In the instant case, a complaint was filed by complainant who joined the services of accused Airlines at New Delhi against accused’s local manager for misbehaving and sexually harassed her. She alleged that the accused company did not have complaint committee as per Sexual Harassment for Women at work place (Prevention, Prohibtion and Redressal Act) 2013.  Thus, the accused company failed to comply the provision of that and were liable to be penalized under Section 26 of Sexual Harassment for Women at work place (Prevention, Prohibtion and Redressal Act) 2013. The only issue invovled in this case was whether as on 11.11.2014 i.e. after the Sexual Harassment for Women at work place (Prevention, Prohibtion and Redressal Act) 2013 came into force, the accused company had internal complaint committee as mandated u/s 4, functioning at its Delhi division or in India as per the Indian Laws or POSH Act. It was held that on 11.11.2014 the accused company did not had the internal committee as per section 4 of POSH Act. Additional affidavit filed by Ms. Somya Gupta, the then Director, Department of Women and Child, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had proved the same. Also, the minutes of meeting concluded that Srilankan Airline did not have complaint committee as per law of this land. Even the respondent in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had submitted that the company had a committee as per their SPASH policy. This policy was not in compliance with Section 4 (1) of Sexual Harassment of Women (Prevention Prohibition and Redressal Act) 2013. Thus, the accused had violated Section 4 (1) of Sexual Harassment of Women (Prevention Prohibition and Redressal Act) 2013 and was liable to be convicted u/s 26 of the same. Therefore, in ultimate analysis as a result of trial, the accused Srilankan Airlines was convicted for the offence u/s 26 of Sexual Harassment for Women at work place (Prevention, Prohibtion and Redressal Act) 2013.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that complainant joined the services of accused Airlines as Secretary at New Delhi and thereafter, she as promoted to Sales Executive and worked in the office of Delhi since 1999 to 2011. On 08.10.2009, accused’s local manager called the complainant in his office and misbehaved and sexually harassed her. It is further submitted that thereafer, the complainant reported the incident to the then Regional Manager. The accused company deliberately delayed the inquiry on the pretext that an appropriate action would be taken against accused’s manager. On 15.03.2010, again complainant was misbehaved and harassed by accused’s local manager. Despite reporting the matter to senior management, accused’s local manager again called the complainant in the month of September 2010 and insulted her on a car parking issue.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.